Most Of Greenland Melted In July [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 5 years ago in Science

Uh oh, are we all going to drown?
There are 127 comments:
Male 6,227
@RW (cont`d)

Well, it`s late and I`ve gone on far too long here. I hope you`re still reading this. I`m going to turn that earlier imagined toast into a real one and raise a glass to the successful landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, which has me absolutely thrilled.

I`ll leave you with a link to the climate change section of NASA`s website. It`s a great resource and, frankly, makes me proud to be an American.

Lastly, RW, I apologize for the insults in my earlier posts. You didn`t deserve them and I should have been more civil.

Vale.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW (cont`d)

You often hear the objection to AGW that goes like this: "Puny man can`t change the global climate. Nature is far more powerful than man."

The thought has some merit to it. After all, Earth`s been around a lot longer than we have and is likely to be here when we`re gone. Compared to natural processes, man does seem, in many ways, a minor factor.

But consider what`s happened with fossil fuels. Over tens of millions of years, carbon from fossilized organic materials was turned to coal and oil. In the past 100 years, man has extracted that carbon--millions of years worth--and dispersed it into the atmosphere. Carbon generated over EONS, thrown into the air in 100 years, the geological blink of an eye. Certainly, natural processes could cope with that much carbon in a suitable, geologic time frame. But to disperse that much carbon, this quickly? It`s an experiment, really, and a dangerous one at that.

(cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW (cont`d)

What percentage of global warming do I attribute to solar variation? 10%-15%. That seems to me to be a conservative estimate (meaning, on the high side); I don`t know of any climatologists, in NASA or otherwise, who propose a greater role for solar variance than that.

So if rise in global temperatures we`ve seen this past century is not attributable to the ice age mechanism and it doesn`t seem possible that the Sun could be driving more than 15% of it, where is the majority of this heating coming from?

Well, since you`ve already stated that you accept anthropogenic climate change, I don`t think I need to explain the greenhouse effect. I`m sure you`ve seen the charts, including the "hockeystick graph." So I don`t think there`s any need to go over what you already understand.

I will pass on to you one realization I had a several years ago that helped me grasp why AGW is a serious problem.

(cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW (cont`d)

But the warming we`ve been seeing now is on a completely different scale, unlike anything related to the temperature changes of the ice ages.

So if I don`t think the ice age cycle has anything to do with global warming, but I do think there is some natural component, what is it?

Our Sun exhibits some (not a lot) of variability in it`s intensity (aka, irradiance), its sunspot activity, and it`s output of UV (ultraviolet) light. While these solar variables are complex and not fully understood, one thing has emerged from the science: Earth is blessed with a Sun that has shown scant variability over millions, even billions, of years. If you stack all the solar variables I`ve mentioned above together, in a "perfect storm," they could account for perhaps 25% of the warming we`ve seen in the last 100 years. But, of course, we aren`t experiencing a perfect storm of solar variance. Yet temperatures continue to rise.

(cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW (cont`d)

The theory you are proposing is pretty common, and I hear it frequently. There is something behind it but after looking into it, I find myself concluding (with NASA and the climatologists) that recurring ice ages is *not*, alas, an explanation for global warming.

To begin with, so far as scientists can tell, ice ages recur every 100,000 years or so, not 10,000 as you have it. These ice ages recur, as you probably know, due to anomalies in the Earth`s orbit and tilt.

So if there is that kind of a mechanism in place, as you say, why am I not attributing global warming to it? The answer is simple, really: The changes that occur in Earth`s temperature relative to ice ages are S-L-O-W. For an ice age to develop, it takes 5,000 to 10,000 years and a similar timescale to reverse. The attending change in temperatures occurs at about the same *glacial* pace (pun intended).

(cont`d next comment)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW: Sorry for the delay. I ve been getting ready for the workweek.

Well, I guess a toast is in order (~raises imaginary glass~) because we`re not that far apart. It sounds like you believe the Earth is gradually warming due to anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change as well as natural mechanisms, as do I. No doubt, we disagree on the proportions, but it sounds like we have more in common than not.

What often happens when I enter these discussions is that I find the other person has no explanation for rising temperatures at all but nonetheless dismisses all theories of AGW on the very scientific basis that they hate liberals and Al Gore is something of a clod. =^.^=

Worse still are those who have their heads firmly buried in the sand and declare that all scientific data from NASA and the Japanese and European agencies is flawed, that the Earth is actually cooling. Something about NASA not knowing how to read thermometers.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 316
@S4S
I never said man has nothing to do with it. I doubt that man is the sole cause of it. I`ll explain. The Earth experiences an ice age every ten thousand years or so. How does an ice age end? The Earth warms. It stands to reason that there are natural mechanisms in place to warm the Earth.
You expect me to believe that this time, after the thousands of times it has happened in the 4 billion year history of the Earth, that man is cause of it this time.
Yes. I realize we are not coming out of an ice age. Never the less, the mechanism is still in place.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW: Well, you may not have noticed, but I`m not publishing a scientific paper here. I`m *trying* to have an intelligent discussion about global warming with someone who keeps deflecting serious topics with lame jokes.

Again: You say that you don`t dispute that the global average temperatures are rising, but you think man has nothing to do with it. So what`s your theory? Let`s hear it.
0
Reply
Male 316
sorry S4S

I can no longer accept scienific advice from you. You haven`t been published or peer reviewed. You have no scienific credence.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW: Scientific observation involves recorded measurements. It is different from a casual observation where you stroll on the beach and observe, "Huh. The ocean looks about the same to me. Those libtards must be wrong."

*Please* take the time to read the Wikipedia piece on the scientific method. You stand to learn a lot from it.

I agree that the "Greenland Melting" headline is misleading. I`m not a big fan of the climate change items Fancy posts. They`re often trivial and sometimes do more harm to AGW science than good (as in this case).

What that headline`s stupidity obscures is an important fact: The surface ice of Greenland melted almost entirely this July, something that`s never been observed by man before. This is a concern because it is precisely what the models of global warming have predicted, and the melting of the Greenland ice mass, should it occur, will raise ocean levels significantly.
0
Reply
Male 316
@S4S
I say I`ve observed something and then you say I haven`t. Your obviously not listening to me. You see the name RytWing and go on the attack. Your not the first.
Can we at least agree that the representation of this data is misleading? Not Wikipedia data. The IAB story data.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW: No, you making a joke about the ocean looking about the same *isn`t* science. You`ve made no observations, have published no data, haven`t had anything peer reviewed, and haven`t even started with a hypothesis.

Seriously: Take the time to read the entire Wikipedia article on the scientific method from which you copied a sentence out of the first paragraph (without attribution). I know it`s long, but it would do you a world of good. And I say that with nothing but goodwill.

But it`s getting late so let`s cut to the chase here. You`ve maintained that you don`t dispute that the global average temperatures are rising, but you don`t believe they`re rising because of anything man is doing. That`s a bold statement considering that you`re disagreeing with NASA, the U.S. Navy, and the National Academy of Sciences. So what`s your theory? Let`s hear it.
0
Reply
Male 316
@S4S
The chart says one thing and I observe another. That is science. And by the way, I never said the oceans aren`t rising. I said the data is being misrepresented.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RW: "How`s that for science?" It`s terrible, actually. It tells me that instead of being informed by the data in the chart, you`re back to the dopey joke with which you entered this discussion, none the wiser.


0
Reply
Male 316
S4S
Sorry. After your last post I thought we changed the subject to terrible news organizations.
I do, in fact, understand the scientific method. ] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Like evolution. No wait. That`s not measurable or observable. So now you see my problem with science. These people get to put a few extra letters behind thier names and all of a sudden they are the end all, be all of knowledge. That is until someone smarter comes along.
I happen to love science. If fact, I observed the ocean not to long ago and it hasn`t moved much. How`s that for science?
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RytWing: You aren`t even engaging in a dialogue, so this is proving to be a waste of time. Your posts are revealing you to be undereducated and chock full of propaganda. Have you even bothered to look into the scientific method yet? I see no evidence that you have any familiarity with it.
0
Reply
Male 316
Wow. Someone really hates FOX news. Ever watch MSNBC? I bet you do. I like to call it the hate channel except on the weekends. Then it`s prison TV.
0
Reply
Female 20
Very pleased to tell you www.chinesegirlfind.com is designed to display pictures of pretty girls website, We will be beautiful Chinese girls are introduced to foreign friends, please be assured that all this is legal.You will see the latest sexy girls, hosiery stockings, legs, sexy tights,game girl,bikini.chinesegirlfind being named the "2012 Most Beautiful Girl", please give them to vote, to win the opportunity to make friends with them! please visit: http://www.chinesegirlfind.com
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RytWing: "*They* means... the people with an agenda."

RW, I know what tree you`re barking up. It`s the story sold by FOX News practically every night where evil career scientists manipulate their data to get grants from the U.S. Gov`t and advance the "global warming agenda."

I encounter this canard on here all the time. Get ready for some facts that FOX News somehow managed to leave out.

One of the main financial backers of FOX News is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. Here`s a recent picture of the prince and Rupert Murdoch schmoozing together.



Prince Waleed has a multi-billion dollar vested interest in keeping the American public addicted to fossil fuels and eager for Saudi oil. Is that the kind of agenda that might, oh, I dunno, want to discredit the work of our own NASA scientists?

Connect the dots, my friend.
0
Reply
Male 316
Did you read the title of the picture. "Most of Greenland melted in July". It then goes on to say, in finer print, that it`s only surface ice that melted. It`s misleading. It`s agenda driven. There is money to be made and Al knows it. If he`s such a saint and trying to save the planet why is he charging obscene amounts of money to talk about it?
0
Reply
Male 316
"they" means the people with authority and influence. "they" are the perpetuators of the (so called) accepted theory of the day. The people with an agenda.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RytWing (cont`d)

4. "They don`t believe in creation yet their theory is that there once was nothing and then there was everything." Yes, mainstream science no longer believes that God created Earth and all its plants and animals in their modern form in 168 hours (seven days) 3,000 years ago. The best that science is telling us now is that the universe was created in an infinitesimally small fraction of an instant approximately 15 billion years ago, and it`s been evolving ever since.

What came before? It`s a mystery. The fact that no one currently knows is not reason to throw all scientific knowledge out the window. Rather, it`s an admission that regardless of how much knowledge man may accrue through science, there will always be unknowns. Please note that this is NOT the same as saying, "If scientists don`t have all the answers TODAY, why should I believe any scientific findings at all?"
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RytWing, cont`d.

2. "They said the Earth was the center of the Universe." Again, not sure who you mean by "they." The ancient Greeks? The Catholic Church? This is a really odd example for you to trot out because the Catholic Church`s condemnation of Galileo for advancing the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa, is a classic example of the conflict between (misguided) faith and (enlightened) science born of observation.

3. "They changed their minds about Pluto." Yes, Pluto was reclassified as a "dwarf planet" or "planetoid" on the sensible basis that large asteroids have been found orbiting the Sun that are larger than Pluto. Science advances. New tools and new theories press the borders of knowledge and cause things to be reclassified. Far from discrediting science as a whole, which you seem to think is the case, it is an affirmation of the scientific method.

(Cont`d next comment)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RytWing: Sorry, friend, but you haven`t *made* any "scientific claims." All you did in that last post is recite several of your misunderstandings concerning history and scientific debate.

So I guess it falls on me to try to bring you up to speed again, huh? (Can you see why I grow a little weary of this?)

1. "They said blacks are inferior." Not sure who you mean by "they." (Nazis? American eugenicists? The ancient Greeks?) I know of no mainstream scientist in the past 100 years who published a peer-reviewed paper arguing that blacks are inferior. Did the Nazi scientists make such claims? Yes, but it was bad science and they were, well, Nazis. Did the ancient Greeks make such claims about the Nubians? Yes, but that was in a racist society that wasn`t using the scientific method. (If you aren`t familiar with the scientific method, Google it: it`s an entire discipline, not just a generic term.)

(Cont`d next comment)
0
Reply
Male 316
@Squrlz4Sale
And yet, instead of refuting my scientific claims, you attack my character and inteligence. I don`t get it. I thought we were having a scientific debate. Not a character assassination. Although that is the only thing you lefties are good at.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RytWing: In all seriousness, I`ll give you credit for admitting you were wrong. Took awhile, but you finally got there, so kudos for that.

If you want to discuss AGW science seriously, I`m willing, but only if you`ll debate honestly, which means admitting error and being candid about what you don`t know (on both sides, of course).

I apologize for coming at you all full of piss and vinegar. I`m not usually this aggressive. I`ve just grown bored with working on the remedial science education of adults who should know better, but don`t.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RytWing: Au contraire, RW, I`m not furious: I`m amused and shaking my head at your delusions. Let me clue you in: "Debating" someone of your teeny caliber is like shooting fish in a barrel. There are a few far-right wingers on here that make it more of a contest, but you aren`t in that league.

Sadly, you`re in the category of "person who knows so little he doesn`t know how much he doesn`t know."

Take some community college classes. Get going on that college degree. It`s never too late. Your ignorance is embarrassing to others, and you don`t even know it.
0
Reply
Male 316
@squrlz4Sale
I bet you would believe anything Al and Barry tell you. I also bet you`ll use an exclamation point in your reply. Yes. I was wrong. Im sure you feel the same as i do about arguing with idiots. Have fun with your Kool-aid.
And just a little insight into how I feel about science...They said blacks are inferior. Wrong. They said the earth was the center of the universe. Wrong. They changed thier minds about Pluto. They don`t believe in creation yet thier theory is that there once was nothing and then there was everything. A contradiction no? By the way...I`m winning because your furious right now and I`m laughing at you.
0
Reply
Male 6,227

@RytWing: No admission of obvious error on your part? Well, you certainly didn`t disappoint.

You go right on disputing the work of NASA scientists and the United States Navy, big guy. You`ve already demonstrated a lack of good high-school level science skills in being unable to understand a disclaimer on a limited data set. But I`m sure you and FOX News are onto something!
0
Reply
Male 316
@squrlz4Sale

Sorry. I have a life.
Did I touch a nerve? It seems your waiting for a reply from me. How sad. Maybe you should step outside and enjoy the warm weather. That is until you are forced to seek higher ground. 7 inches in 120 years is hardly cause for panic considering there is no data prior to 1880.
I don`t dispute climate change, I dispute it`s causes.
0
Reply
Male 6,227

... still waiting for RytWing to be polite and admit he misunderstood the sea-level chart ... you know, because he`s so big on courtesy and all that ... I`m sure if I wait just another hour-and-a-half he`ll respond...

Then again, maybe he`s just another far-right Whack-a-Mole who disappears once his errors have been pointed out, only to reappear three weeks later, spouting the same misinformation.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@OutWest: Good one! Oh, you far-right FOXaholics crack me up.

Have you seen my post below about playing far-right conservative "Whack-A-Mole"? You missed the part about Gore drinking the extracted blood of fluffy kittens.


0
Reply
Male 546
Quick.... Pay Al Gore. He`ll fix it!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Evidence that our globe is undergoing a shift in climactic trends. Great. Where do we get to the part that it`s all America`s fault? I`m counting on you fancy...
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@RytWing: Did I hurt your feelings? I apologize. You know, you`re right. Yes, you`re asserting things that are contrary to the truth. And in your case, it`s probably more because you are misunderstanding things than through any conscious attempt to lie.

So even though it may be a waste of time, let me courteously explain your errors.

1. You said the chart "clearly states that the data is regional not global." That is flat-out wrong. As I`ve already explained, the chart presents data from 24 stations across the globe. It is NOT regional. This isn`t debatable, so please extend the courtesy you seem to be demanding of me by admitting your mistake.

2. Where you are erring is that you are misunderstanding the use of the word "regional" in the explanation of the chart. What the author is saying is that since this data come from only 24 stations, there`s some uncertainty as to what`s going on at all the other spots on the globe. Get it now?
0
Reply
Male 316
@squrlz4Sale

So... Liar liar pants on fire! That`s what you`ve resorted to? You clearly didn`t read the the paragraph I posted from your source. If you had you would see my point.
The losing side always resorts to name calling. Grow up.
0
Reply
Male 6,227

@RytWing: You`re a liar. Sorry to be blunt, but I`m tired of being polite in response to liars.

You asked "How much has the ocean risen in the past thirty years? Where can I find the data on that?"

I presented the chart to oblige you. This chart, as it explains in the link I provided, contains data from 24 sites across the globe, including New Zealand, Panama, the Canary Islands, San Francisco, and Hawaii. It is NOT, as you erroneously state, regional.

Nice try, and thanks for playing.
0
Reply
Male 316
@squrlz4Sale

The chart you provided clearly states that the data is regional not global. You presented it as global. There is your misrepresentation.
0
Reply
Male 6,227

@5Cats: I hope you`ll forgive me, 5Cats, but I decline to play far-right conservative "Whack-a-Mole" yet again.

On several occasions, I`ve patiently engaged with you, CrakrJack, and others on AGW, pointing out the factual errors in your propaganda, and it always goes something like this:

IAB Crank: The sky isn`t blue. They`re lying about the data. I read it on a conservative blog.

Squrlz: But the sky *is* blue. (Link provided.)

IAB Crank: On a cloudy day, it`s gray--see? You libtards are all lemmings.

Squrlz: I thought we were talking about the sky, and not the clouds. Clouds can be many colors. The unclouded sky is blue. (Link provided.)

I-A-B Crank: It`s 1 am and I just looked out my window and the sky is BLACK. You libtards are all just believing the hysteria created by Al Gore, who is a daemon living off the extracted blood of fluffy kittens....

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
0
Reply
Male 6,227

@Insane_ai: So I take it you`ve completely written off NASA, the U.S. Navy, and the National Academy of Sciences (look it up; it was created by Abraham Lincoln). Those three organizations, and dozens of others both here and abroad, have all reviewed the science and agree that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Calling people that accept established mainstream science "lemmings" is a joke. About the only people left on the planet who are still denying AGW exists are FOX News, the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, and a collection of American propaganda-fueled cranks on I-A-B.

Sorry to burst your far-right conservative bubble, buddy.
0
Reply
Male 1,866
Yes, great science. Look at 130 years of limited data and ignore millenia of geological records of warming and cooling cycles on the earth.

Global warming beleivers are nothgin more than cogs on the machine for political power grabbing. drating lemmings.
0
Reply
Male 40,751
@Squrlz: You do notice that the sea levels "have been rising" since 1900? Loooong before AGW, correct?
It`s alomst as if the Earth were experiencing a natural warming period after some kind of "mini ice-age" or something...
...NAW! Must be 100% human-caused!
0
Reply
Male 196
"We`ve broken record for warmth"...whoa....speak for yourself, buddy. I had nothing to do with it. I don`t even drive a car!
0
Reply
Male 6,227

@RytWing: Right, and you found that statement of objectivity where? Yes: Right with the chart, along with the links to all the data.

That`s how honest science works. And yet you call that "another misrepresentation of data"?

I don`t often use the word on here, but you`re being ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 316
@Squrlz4Sale
The summary of the picture below states...
Because of the limited geographic coverage of these records, it is not obvious whether the apparent decadal fluctuations represent true variations in global sea level or merely variations across regions that are not resolved.
Another misrepresentation of data.
0
Reply
Male 6,227

RytWing: "So...how much has the ocean risen in the past thirty years? Where can I find the data on that?"

See below. The full background on this chart, including methodology and links to data, can be found here.


0
Reply
Male 6,227
@AvatarJohn: Arguing that the word "denier" should only be used in connection with the Holocaust is a silly taboo. The word, meaning simply "one who denies something," has been around for over 600 years.

After a quick Google, I find that the people who take offense at the term "global warming deniers" are almost invariably right-wing opponents of global warming science who are trying to smear the opposition.

Quoting Anthony Watts, who has been an opponent of global warming science for decades, carries zero weight with me.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Squrlz4Sale, as a Jew, I wish you wouldn`t use the word "deniers" in this context. I quote Anthony Watts:

"I reserve the word `deniers` for people that explicitly reject the history of Jewish extermination in wartime Germany.

When I see anyone legitimize the term `denier` in the context of this debate, an alarm bell goes off – `this is not a serious person`.

To do so is to commit an unforgivable devaluation of the historical relevance of the word `denier`. It’s a rhetorical tactic unworthy of anyone who wants their scientific credibility to remain above reproach."
0
Reply
Male 316
So...how much has the ocean risen in the past thirty years? Where can I find the data on that? The last time I was down there it seemed about the same.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Holy cow, do you know what this means?!?! It`s summer!!! Run for the hills!
0
Reply
Male 40,751
@Student Law: The weather is NOT "more extreme". The sea has NOT risen. Global temperatures are FLAT over the past 15 years.

YES: CO2 has risen steadily, THAT is true.
But the climate remains... the same!
0
Reply
Male 1,010
What else is new, scientist together declared that the weather would be more extreme and that the sea would rise decades ago.

We are just seeing exactly what the scientists told us we would see.
0
Reply
Male 6,227

5Cats: "Both Iceland and Greenland were warmer in Viking times than they are today. It`s a fact."

No, it isn`t. It`s a favorite piece of misinformation endlessly repeated by global warming deniers like yourself. ~sigh~
0
Reply
Male 7
my roomate`s aunt makes $83/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $8682 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site...NuttyRich . com
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It`s obvious we eroded the ozone layer with our own emissions, so why is changing the climate with our CO2 emissions such a stretch?[/quote]

Removing CFCs from sprays didn`t require any lifestyle changes at all.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions does, so some people will apply wildly different standards in order to avoid any possibility of any lifestyle changes.

Scientists will probably pull everyone out of the hole anyway. They usually do. Of course, that won`t stop the usual idiots using the fruits of science in their lives made much longer and much more comfortable by the fruits of science to complain about money being spent on science they see as being useless because of their own monumental ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 910
5Cats when the drat were "viking times" and I hope for your sake you`re not referring to the "medieval warm period" ...
0
Reply
Male 458
auburnjunky:
"The melt has occurred, and no towns are gone. Hmmmmmm."

Correction: The melt has only really started to begin. You have no idea how much water is locked away in greenland and antarctica.
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"Also: And the Earth has NEVER ONCE been warmer than it is right now, correct @mesovortex? NO OTHER POSSIBLE NATURAL FORCE can warm the planet, but a miniscule bunch of apes CAN! "

Re-read what I said. There is no current known mechanism that can explain for the current (read: recent) warming. Solar activity doesn`t account for it. Volcanic activity doesn`t. The only thing that can is the change in atmospheric content which is directly attributable by man.

It`s obvious we eroded the ozone layer with our own emissions, so why is changing the climate with our CO2 emissions such a stretch?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
5cats, your opinion on this matter means little. To say it in your language: peer-reviewed publications > 5cats` opinion
0
Reply
Male 40,751
[quote]since there is no other natural explanation to explain the current warming we`re seeing.[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHA!
Also: And the Earth has NEVER ONCE been warmer than it is right now, correct @mesovortex? NO OTHER POSSIBLE NATURAL FORCE can warm the planet, but a miniscule bunch of apes CAN!

Both Iceland and Greenland were warmer in Viking times than they are today. It`s a fact.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]It`s called Greenland, because when it was discovered, it was a huge grassland.

No ice. [/quote]
Herp a derp, AJ. Herp a derp.
0
Reply
Male 621
auburnjunky: "It`s called Greenland, because when it was discovered, it was a huge grassland. No ice."

Greenland, in fact, has been mostly (~80%) covered in ice since it was discovered (by the people that named it). Iceland, however, was mostly green.

Iceland was probably named that way due to the sea-ice that was spotted by Flóki Vilgerðarson (prior to that Iceland was called "Thule"). It was a land surrounded by ice.

Greenland (originally Grænland), on the other hand, was named that way to help attract settlers from Iceland. Parts of it are green, but the vast majority of it has been covered in ice since its discovery. The people that settled there ultimately died out.

Seriously, we have ice cores over 3km deep from Greenland dating back to over 10,000 years ago. How is that possible in a place with "no ice" ~1,000 years ago?
0
Reply
Male 2,552
>Draculya
Goodbye CURRENT low lying coastal towns. Hello to all the new ones and all the new archipelagal towns!
0
Reply
Male 458
auburnjunky:
"It`s called Greenland, because when it was discovered, it was a huge grassland. "

This isn`t true. The Greenland Ice Sheet is hundreds of thousands of years old. You won`t get 2 miles of ice to form in a thousand years.
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"Correct @mesovortex! It HAS been increasing since the "Little Ice Age" and that has nothing to do with human actions. Get it?"

Wrong. The last 100 years (or at least the last 30) are directly attributable to human activity since there is no other natural explanation to explain the current warming we`re seeing.
0
Reply
Male 458
auburnjunky:
"The melt has occurred, and no towns are gone. Hmmmmmm."
Sea levels are rising, and eventually they will be.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"well bye bye low lying coastal towns."

The melt has occurred, and no towns are gone. Hmmmmmm.
0
Reply
Male 15,261
well bye bye low lying coastal towns. It was nice knowing you.
0
Reply
Male 40,751
[quote]@5cats: Technically that`s only 2 questions, or 4 if you`re counting question marks.[/quote]
@patchy: It`s from Monty Python, eh? (The Bridgekeeper in The Holy Grail)

[quote]So you`re actually claiming that all the AGW research is `questionable`?[/quote]
No, the bulk of it is outright fraudulent, fake and lies. Beyond "Questionable" for sure. Hockey Stick!

[quote]and the earth`s temperature has been increasing over time.[/quote]
Correct @mesovortex! It HAS been increasing since the "Little Ice Age" and that has nothing to do with human actions. Get it?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Actually Cap, Erik the Red chose the name Green Land to attract settlers, but he was describing what he saw when he arrived there. He had no reason to lie, because the land was unsettled, and free. It wasn`t his land, and he wasn`t selling it. He just wanted friends. lol.
0
Reply
Male 1,249
@auburnjunky just make it up as you go eh? It was named that to trick people into settling there
0
Reply
Male 10,338
It`s called Greenland, because when it was discovered, it was a huge grassland.

No ice.

This has happened before.
0
Reply
Male 458
MeGrendel:
So wait, according to your logic since the banking industry used math and calculus to rob people of trillions of dollars, that math and calculus have to be wrong and full of lies?

Have you thought your logic through?
0
Reply
Male 458
5cats:
"So what happened 30 years ago to cause higher melting? AGW?
So what happened 150 years ago to cause the same melting as now? AGW?"

You can`t use statistical anomalies to determine a trend. You have to average them out. Melting over time has increased in greenland, and the earth`s temperature has been increasing over time. If you average long term statistical trends, you see more and more melting, and more and more increase in temperatures.
0
Reply
Male 458
MeGrendel:
You also can`t dismiss science just because of people might do politically with it. People have used the laws of physics to assassinate people, so by your logic the laws can`t exist?
0
Reply
Male 458
zeebeedee:

The title is inaccurate. This is surface melt. The entire ice sheet will take a while to melt - but it is melting at an alarming and staggering rate.
0
Reply
Male 458
MeGrendel:
But you`re not a climate scientist. Your opinion is like saying "I`m a biologist, so let me talk about quantum physics".

The climate research hasn`t be falsified or doctored. Plenty of investigations show it to be accurate.

Also, you are using bad reasoning. Climate change can happen naturally. It can also happen because of man`s actions. One doesn`t preclude the other.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: Technically that`s only 2 questions, or 4 if you`re counting question marks. I`m not sure this melting of Greenland is a cause for panic, but rather a cause for concern and further research. I don`t have enough data for a judgement as of yet, but whatever`s happening is not good. Whenever melting happens and re-freezing doesn`t in between melts you know something`s up.

@MeGrendel: So you`re actually claiming that all the AGW research is `questionable`? Well it passed peer-review, so any chemist worth his salt should accept that as an endorsement of the research. If studies to the contrary weren`t `questionable` then they would be published. Neither of us are climate scientists, so I have to accept the consensus of the experts in their field, and if they are wrong then their studies shouldn`t be repeatable or there should be published studies refuting them. You`re letting personal bias cloud the issue. If the consensus were the opposite, that would be my stance.
0
Reply
Male 8,538
patchgrabber-"typical conservative reaction to science"

Nope, `typical Research Chemist reaction to questionable science`. Especially since the `science` includes false graphs, inaccurate `predictions`, misrepresented data, proof of researcher `fudging`, and MUST NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE DABATED.

Is the climate changing? Of course. Never said other-wise. Of course, it`s been changing for millions of years. And I`ve yet heard anyone say what the `perfect climate` should be? When was the glaciation `perfect`? How they were in 1969? Or when they reached Oklahoma?
0
Reply
Male 40,751
@patchy: So what happened 30 years ago to cause higher melting? AGW?
So what happened 150 years ago to cause the same melting as now? AGW?

Answer me these questions 3!

My chart is a presentation of the facts, sorry I didn`t like the source! I usually try to: Here`s the Sauce!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]I`m talking Trillions in tax money, controlling the way people live and pushing for a centralized world governing body to tell you what you can`t do.[/quote]
I guess if you`re wearing the tinfoil hat you might as well wear a big one. It`s typical conservative reaction to science: If we can`t stop research that doesn`t fit our ideologies, attempt to discredit it no matter how ridiculous we look doing it; if you repeat it enough people will ignore the overwhelming opinion of scientists.
0
Reply
Male 613
It`s 2 miles thick by a million square miles.

If you think it`s 75% melted this year you are going through life ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 8,538
patchgrabber-"The notion that climate change is a scam to get more research money"

Who said anything about `reasearch money`? That`s thinking to small. I`m talking Trillions in tax money, controlling the way people live and pushing for a centralized world governing body to tell you what you can`t do. Just look at the EU Airline Carbon Tax.

The research money is just a way to control the scientists. ("What? Your research doesn`t support AGW? No money for you!")
0
Reply
Male 8,538
jaymeister-"Anyone know where I can find some HOT Chinese chicks ?"

Apparently in Greenland.
0
Reply
Male 141
I wonder what happens to all that water in the winter time.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: The notion that climate change is a scam to get more research money is just ridiculous. The sheer amount of scientists that do original research, and the journals that publish results (not all are even climate-specific) that have multiple other scientists peer-review literature is such that it is virtually impossible for such a grand scam to happen. Take your tinfoil hat off, or you might as well question every scientific opinion on the basis that someone is trying to make money off it.
0
Reply
Male 244
everything melted in july greenland was just jumping on the bandwagon - its friggin hot yo
0
Reply
Male 39
Anyone know where I can find some HOT Chinese chicks ?
0
Reply
Male 8,538
goaliejerry-"He tells me I have cancer."

A more accurate scenario is, "He tells me I am tired because it`s past my bedtime and I will not be able go to sleep until I give him my life savings and change my driving habits. Even though I`ve slept every night in the past, and expect to sleep tonight and every night after, I believe him and give him my money and my car. Later that night I go to sleep and wake up refreshed. HE`S A GENIUS!"

goaliejerry-"sole goal in resisting climate change action is maintaining low corporate tax rates."

What does taxes have to do with Global Warming unless, of course, it`s just an excuse to get more taxes?
0
Reply
Male 39
WHAT !!! Ice starts melting in 24hours a day of SUN , WTF , i am building an ark and all you global warming conspritists are welcome aboard....It is made of lead btw, BON VOYAGE :)
0
Reply
Male 1,293
You do realise that the people who did this research said themselves that the evidence suggests this happens about every 150 years on average, don`t you?

It last happened in 1889, and there was no mass flooding.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: That article you linked also said that the ice sheet isn`t getting bigger between pulses, which is a problem.

[quote]Maybe you yanks would, but on this side of the pond we can get a second opinion, from another doctor! And they don`t always agree with the first one. [/quote]
This demonstrates complete ignorance of jerry`s posts. He didn`t say that it was *one* doctor, he said that he has consulted with his peers and 92% agree with the diagnosis, there`s your second, third, fourth etc. opinions right there. FACT is, overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes AGW is happening, end of story. Facts and scientific consensus > graphs 5cats pulls of interwebz.
0
Reply
Female 20
0
Reply
Male 4
In spite of so called "Peer Review", so called "Experts" ...usually self appointed... don`t seem to know the difference between weather and climate. Nice map illustrations though.
0
Reply
Male 186
Dangit.

That last sentence is supposed to be:
97% of the greenland ice sheet has melted. Get off your freaking high-horse!
0
Reply
Male 186
@Goaliejerry "No, you listen to the specialist. He`s consulted with his peers. 92% of his peers agree with his diagnosis. You have fricken cancer.

Maybe you yanks would, but on this side of the pond we can get a second opinion, from another doctor! And they don`t always agree with the first one. Because, surprise, surprise, doctors are humans and make mistakes. And a doctor might tell you: "You have cancer, but we caught it early and it`s easily treatable. Your chances of survival are very very good". People like you stop listening after: You have cancer.

Similarly with this article: "97% of the Greenland icesheet experienced some degree of melting. While this years event seems to be more severe than previous occurrences, this type of thing happens around once every 150 years and this event is right on schedule. While we can`t rule out a component of Climate Change it does not seem far out of the ordinary".

You only hear: 97% of the
0
Reply
Male 39,912

How do we know the Greenlanders didn`t melt it on purpose?
Did ya ever think about that?
0
Reply
Male 316
They say that the earth experiences an ice age every ten thousand years. Does it not stand to reason that the earth experiences a hot age every ten thousand years?
0
Reply
Male 340
Climate change: It`s happened before, it`ll happen again. It`s a natural part of Earth`s cycle
0
Reply
Male 10,338
So....

It`s warmer....

I like warm weather....

I`m not bothered.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I don`t care about the political aspect, but I do care about the honesty aspect. They`re being misleading. Like the caption here says "Most of Greenland Melted in July". That`s just dishonest.
0
Reply
Male 40,751



Look at that rising temperature!!! Oh wait...
0
Reply
Male 40,751
This is the largest ice melt in 30 years of satellite observations.

So, what happened 30 years ago?

Excellent point @OldOllie! 30 years ago was... retroactive AGW!!!!!!!
Caused by BUSH!

Seriously, since it was just as bad 30 years ago, any AGW enthusiests care to explain THAT???
0
Reply
Male 40,751
@goaliejerry: 97% EXPERIENCED MELTING not 97% MELTED!!!!
Completely and totally different!
Your AGW scare-mongering is meaningless! Facts > libtard lies!

This sort of thing happens on a cyclical basis: this "event" is right on schedual! HOW does "human interference" make things happen in thier expected timeframes? More like: humans DON`T MATTER a whole heck-of-a-lot.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]This is the largest ice melt in 30 years of satellite observations. [/quote]
So, what happened 30 years ago?
0
Reply
Male 121
@Xprez Still tryin` to make sense of what you said. As far as I can tell, you are saying that because man is contributing to global warming, it`s no big deal. Well, if you are dependent on US food supplies, you might change your mind before long... that is before long in human time frame, not a geological time frame. That makes anything I say redundant. So why did I bother... hmmmmm?
0
Reply
Male 8
great were all going to die >.<
0
Reply
Female 1,515
@Xprez obviously climate change on a global scale happens in cycles. Obviously it will continue even when we are gone. I believe the point is that our actions have rapidly increased the rate at which it is occuring and if we would like to continue on living as we are right now then we need to do something about it...oh wait, its already too late. Yes, human life is a minute in the life of the earth but it doesn`t change the fact that as a species we should be trying to preserve our home. Unless our goal is to screw up our environment to the point of not being able to sustain our population because half of our continents will be underwater and temperature changes not allowing for viable farming. Then yeah, it doesn`t matter. Continue on.
0
Reply
Male 676
It`s a wonder how the Earth survived before us. The Earth`s climate in cyclic in nature. Ice cores prove this. An ice age will happen if we were here or not. Global warming happens whether we are here or not. We may have expedited it a bit, but in Earth years, it`s irrelevant. Stop with the end of the world crap. It will go on long after we`re gone
0
Reply
Male 2,675
It`s obviously because of the diminishing number of pirates in the world. :(
0
Reply
Male 316
@goaliejerry

Lefties always go around saying how " you can`t hate this group" and " you can`t hate that group" and then they go around hating the right all efing day long. How do you qualify this?
0
Reply
Male 316
So 40% of the surface ice melted prior to July 8 and another 57% melted in only 4 days. That seems like a pretty high number considering how big Greenland is.

And just how deep do these "scientists" think the surface is? Missing information can cause panic.

This data only focuses on surface ice so calm down! Greenland didn`t just melt altogether.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Republicans decry the supposed decline of American society, then actively attack the scientists that our society once reveared because they don`t realise they`ve been coopted by businesses who sole goal in resisting climate change action is maintaining low corporate tax rates.

Let this be a lesson - Obama is going to crush Romeny in a Bob Dole style defeat, despite a poor economy. History doesn`t always produce close elections, and we`re due for a blowout. Why? Because Republicans don`t realize history is marching past them. They think America is on their side - then why is Gay Marriage inevitably moving forward? You don`t realize it, but America - the non-partisan middle - sees through your small-minded bullcrap. That is why you will lose, because America is moving on without you.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Link for the scientist quote below, which includes this map.

Link
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Need more facts please!"

Did you goto NASA`s website? Because this is a graphical representation of cumulative data from multiple satilites.

Here, from a scientist:

"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result," said Son Nghiem, a satellite data analyst at NASA`s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Was this real or was it due to a data error?"

Independent confirmation from three different satellites would seem to rule out an error. Researchers from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and several universities confirmed the incredible melt."

Psh, NASA, what do THEY know about weather, satilites, and planetary bodies? It`s not like they`ve measured tempuratures on Venus and Mars with satilites before in preparation for landing rovers there. Fox News told me, um, science is stupid. NASA was good enough to crush the russians, but now, LIBERALS!
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Its no use arguing with closed minded dumb*ucks, but I`ll make this observation.

Lets say I go to a doctor. This is a doctor who studies cancer for a living, for decades, their entire livelihood, who knows more about cancer than I ever will, who studied in school under the guy who found a specific type of cancer, and swho doesn`t know me personally but sure as sh*t knows cancer.

He tells me I have cancer. I don`t reply "you don`t know anything! I read some stuff on the internet!"

No, you listen to the specialist. He`s consulted with his peers. 92% of his peers agree with his diagnosis. You have fricken cancer. Ostrichism won`t cure you. Get your head out of your assho1e.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
With or without our intervention, it was going to happen at some point anyways
0
Reply
Male 329
The actual ice/snow free zones look the same. Of course there`s thawing every year. We call them "seasons."
0
Reply
Male 40,751
And Here It Says Greenland`s Ice Is OK
But... teh science is SETTLED -Al Gore
0
Reply
Male 40,751
FALSE! That % "had thawing" and it happens, like clockwork, about every 150 years! Last time was... about 150 years ago!! Amazing eh?

So sorry, facts = no reason to panic.
0
Reply
Male 3,646
"an estimated 97% of the ice sheet surface had thawed."

Need more facts please!
Is "thaw" completely melted and gone? Or is "thaw" that the surface has just become soft?
How deep is the surface? 1 cm? 1 inch? 1 foot? 1 meter?

Combine the lack of two answerss and you get yourself an overly biased chart.
0
Reply
Male 347
Most of Greenland experienced SOME melting--don`t worry, it`s still covered in ice. There is melting every summer.
0
Reply
Male 186
And once again the thaw cycle is grossly misrepresented. It`s not actually unusual for a large amount of thawing to happen. Infact it happens in an almost fixed cycle. And this melt episode is right on schedule.

No reason to panic.
0
Reply
Male 1,793
not me... i don`t have an ocean view....
0
Reply
Male 464
Really? England is wet and has a pleasant 15-20 degree heat. It`s lovely..
0
Reply
Male 83
Alright....I want to see you conserving energy first and then kick and scream about the environment
0
Reply
Male 20,908
Link: Most Of Greenland Melted In July [Pic] [Rate Link] - Uh oh, are we all going to drown?
0
Reply