Massive Greenland meltdown? Not so fast, say scientists

... Morpheus2012 obviously didn't even read the article.

Specifically I was referring to this line near the bottom of the article:

Nor should the new study "be taken out of context to suggest that climate change is not a serious threat -- it is," he added.

So I can see some of the rest of you don't read the articles all the way through either. That's ok. Many of the lower forms of internet denizen only read the tagline. If you're reading more than that, you're above average:P.

I'm also surprised that anyone would vote up a troll who, in his first post on a thread, manages to invoke Godwin's Law. Seriously? In the starting post? Geez.

... Morpheus2012 obviously didn't even read the article.

Giving that his writing consists of incoherent babbling, he probably doesn't know how to read. He just picks up on key words (climage change, Greenland) and this triggers him to go into his paranoid schizophrenic tirades against Al Gore and the "world elite."

I'm also surprised that anyone would vote up a troll

The religious faithful of the Church of Global Warming Denialism are always giving each other group hugs: voting 5 stars for every comment that conforms to their religious dogma, voting 1 star for everything else.

I'm so tired of people politicizing this issue and arguing it to the death. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats.

Of course the environment is taking a beating and we need to start with the biggest offenders and find ways to clean it up.

And I got news for the tree-hugging dopes: Hummers are not the problem.

If you are seriously concerned about the environment, let's get China & India on board and clean up their industry.

And for God's sake just sign Kyoto or whatever it is now.

from what I gather, peak mass loss occurs at the coastline. This research suggests that once the glacier has been reduced to the limits of the coast, the volume of ice lost should decrease. This makes sense. It is a little ironic that he criticizes the use of small datasets in other studies but only examines a single glacier in his study.

If you are seriously concerned about the environment, let's get China & India on board and clean up their industry.

And for God's sake just sign Kyoto or whatever it is now.

These two statements appear to contradict. One of the main reasons Bush refused to sign Kyoto was because it largely exempts China and India, and Bush wanted to "get China & India on board". He was holding out for Kyoto to be modified to restrict China and India the same as us -- which, of course, it never was.

I'm a strong proponent of taking steps against global warming, but I also acknowledge that at their current growth rates, China and India alone could pump out enough CO2 over the next century to outweigh Kyoto ten times over. I do hope that the world finds a way to reign them in. But they are well aware that their economies would benefit drastically from a world where everyone *but* them signs Kyoto -- so it could be hard to reign them in. And we simply can't fight this fight successfully without them. Perhaps after everyone else signs on, there will be enough pressure to force their hands...

Nor should the new study "be taken out of context to suggest that climate change is not a serious threat -- it is," he added, "When the climate is changing so quickly toward cooling as it has in recent years, it is indeed a serious threat... to our funding. I don't know what other climate researchers are planning to do, but I was thinking about becoming a plumber."

Nor should the new study "be taken out of context to suggest that climate change is not a serious threat -- it is," he added, "When the climate is changing so quickly toward cooling as it has in recent years, it is indeed a serious threat... to our funding. I don't know what other climate researchers are planning to do, but I was thinking about becoming a plumber."

Yes, we've had a few cooler years (still hot compared to the 20th century, but cool by 21st century standards). But a few years does not make a trend. If you look at decades' worth of data, the overall trend is clear, even though some years are indeed cooler than previous years. Look, man, global warming does not mean that each and every year will always be warmer than the next. Here in Houston we just had an 80 degree day yesterday -- but I don't conclude from this that winter is over. A single day's temperature doesn't mean jack squat. And when it comes to global climate change, a single year (or even decade) doesn't mean jack squat.

.

morpheus2012 your obviously smoking too much weed and listening to Alex Jones too much.
Does anyone know or where to find out how much ice has melted or gained the last two years.
At least in the area I live we are breaking records for cold and snow.

If you look at decades' worth of data, the overall trend is clear, even though some years are indeed cooler than previous years

It's actualy a little over a century's worth of data.

30 years of sea ice data and we are right back where we started:

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Uhhhh... I think someone has some explaining to do...
See this:

http://scienceand...ling.pdf

Your friends have already figured it out... the global warming scam has run its course. Don't be the guy at the snipe hunt holding the bag...

"The ice sitting atop Greenland could lift oceans by seven metres, though even the gloomiest of climate change projections do not include such a scenario." Unless you're Al Gore, he said 80', that's 24 metres!

I do not know if it was taken into account that 2007 it is the year of the solar minimum activity and the melting process wil increase faster up to 2014,the year of greatest solar activity.

I do not know if it was taken into account that 2007 it is the year of the solar minimum activity and the melting process wil increase faster up to 2014,the year of greatest solar activity.

http://science.na...ange.htm
2022 is the peak of solar cycle 25 and this is supposedly being predicted as one of the quieter solar cycles. Where did you get 2014 from?

I see all the coal miner's are stil here :

Most Holy High Minister of Gaia! Let us kiss the green Mitre and take the carbon wafer and petrol goblet from your most holy hand! Let the heretics burn in runaway greenhouse and be cast into the deepest ozone hole forever! Keep us from the temptations of freedom and individual liberty, lest we give heed to fires of industry and cover ourselves in the soot of productive capacity! May the holy sword of bueareucracy go forth to the battles of international taxation and deliver us from the evils of national sovereignity in the name of our great green god! Amen!

Some reasons why rational people accuse climate change alarmists as the zealots of a new religion:

Old: Prophets of doom preaching the imminent retributions of an angry God for Man's excesses

New: Prophets of science preaching imminent doom from man's excesses changing the climate.

Old: A canonical orthodoxy of creeds enforced by elite gatherings whose judgment is infallible.

New: A canonical orthodoxy of theory enforced by elite gatherings whose statements are taken as the universal consensus.

Old: Proselytizing directly to the people through popular media and charismatic personalities speaking with unwavering faith.

New: Proselytizing scientific theory directly to the people through saturation of mass media with regular press releases presented as facts, or through charismatic personalities speaking with unwavering faith.

Old: Combination of government and religious authority forms a potent synergy of state power that enables the governance of all aspects of life and behavior.

New: All responses to climate change require the authority of government to enforce laws based the orthodoxy of climate theory, re-enabling the state to govern like it did back in the "good old days."

Old: Indulgences for sins were sold for gold and silver, and sins were assigned penance to clear the path to paradise.

New: Carbon credits and CO2 taxes are collected to undue the harm of past and future indiscretions to clear the path to an ecological paradise.

Let's see, Greenland is about 1/500th the surface of the earth's oceans. So for oceans to rise 7m, the AVERAGE height of ice on any part of Greenland must be 3.5km or more than 10,000 feet. I don't think so.

These two statements appear to contradict. One of the main reasons Bush refused to sign Kyoto was because it largely exempts China and India, and Bush wanted to "get China & India on board".

That's the same reason Clinton and AlGo also refused to endorse Kyoto.

These two statements appear to contradict. One of the main reasons Bush refused to sign Kyoto was because it largely exempts China and India, and Bush wanted to "get China & India on board".

That's the same reason Clinton and AlGo also refused to endorse Kyoto.

That is until Al realized it was a cash cow and "symbolically" signed it for the US.

30 years of sea ice data and we are right back where we started:

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Uhhhh... I think someone has some explaining to do...
See this:

http://scienceand...ling.pdf

Your friends have already figured it out... the global warming scam has run its course. Don't be the guy at the snipe hunt holding the bag...

yeah for the smart ass zombi algore zelots or just ingnorant sheep user mikeB
provided 2 scientific links

to prove this point or at least wake up the the sleeping sheep that is

respect
oh and my video link for those in doubt
http://www.youtub...PV01uyRs

enjoy

peace


ups bonus for the 30 000 scientist who will sue
algore for his scam

watch with ur own eyes
http://www.youtub...W7KR33IQ

couse some of the the fag sheep here think im just a troll

watch and learn

What is truncating the links in these posts?

Beyond that: Someone(s) disagree with the majority consensus. That's science. But is their opinion any better than the majority? Probably not.
In any case, the article simply argues against raising the upper limit on a new consensus rather than the 'old' concensus of the IPCC.
Of course all of this is problematic and will continue to be until nature takes its course. The point? Can we afford to do nothing... just in case?

Let's see, Greenland is about 1/500th the surface of the earth's oceans. So for oceans to rise 7m, the AVERAGE height of ice on any part of Greenland must be 3.5km or more than 10,000 feet. I don't think so.

Greenland is not 0.2% of ocean surface, but 0.646% of ocean surface. The AVERAGE ice thickness on Greenland is over 1 km. If it all melted, yes, the sea would rise 7 m.

Greenland is not 0.2% of ocean surface, but 0.646% of ocean surface. The AVERAGE ice thickness on Greenland is over 1 km. If it all melted, yes, the sea would rise 7 m.

That's assuming, of course, that only the ice on Greenland melted while all the rest of the sea ice in the world just kinda sat there.

We are rightfully worried about our impact, both our current data and theories point towards GW, but that said our data is limited and our understanding and models even more so. It is quite possible that some overlooked mechanisms will kick in and the effect will be different then anticipated, but even if by 2020 it will be obvious that we are heading towards an ice age it still won't change the fact that now in 2009 we are doing the right thing to consider GW a serious threat.

However any costly economic interventions should wait until we have more certainty, at the moment we should promote clean energy and focus on research and technology development, especially clean energy and carbon sequestering technologies should be explored. Global geoengineering is completely unacceptable at this stage, especially without global consent as it might prove much more disastrous then 1m rise in ocean level by 2100.

As for temperatures it needs to be said that Global Warming is a misnomer, I'll quote Freeman Dyson as he explains it nicely:

"As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. ... The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger"

New record low temps from the weather channel 1/16/2009.

http://www.weathe...=hp_news

Today in weather
Tim Ballisty, Meteorologist and Renee Willet, Content Manager, weather.com
Jan. 16, 2009 8:58 am ET
Record lows in the 20s, 30s below zero | Inauguration forecast | On this date

8:17 am ET
Several record lows pouring in: TWC meteorologist Mark Ressler has gathered up more and more record lows this morning coming in from the Midwest and Northeast. Like we said in the 7:57 am ET update, there may be even more to come in during the morning.
Maine
%u2022 Caribou: -37 [-27 in 1984]
%u2022 Houlton: -36 [-26 in 2004]
%u2022 Bangor: -25 [-20 in 1994]
New Hampshire
%u2022 Concord: -24 [-19 in 1984]
Vermont
%u2022 Burlington: -21 [-20 in 1920]
%u2022 Montpelier: -25 [-21 in 1994]
Iowa
%u2022 Waterloo: -34** [-26 in 1977]
%u2022 Ottumwa :-20 [-19 in 1977]
%u2022 Mason City: -31 [-25 in 1977]
%u2022 Dubuque: -30 [-30 in 1888]
%u2022 Cedar Rapids: -27 [-23 in 1982]
%u2022 Spencer: -28 [-26 in 1977]
Minnesota
%u2022 St. Cloud: -34 [-31 in 1977]
Illinois
%u2022 Moline: -29 [-23 in 1888]
%u2022 Rockford: -25 [-24 in 1982]
%u2022 Peoria: -21 [-20 in 1977]
Michigan
%u2022 Detroit: -15 [-14 in 1972]
**ties coldest temp on record 3/1/1962
7:57 am ET
Breaking subzero record lows: It%u2019s becoming a broken record when talking about broken record lows. With the arctic air mass in place, cities are reaching down low for new records as temps tumble into the 20s and 30s below zero.
Here%u2019s a list of new record lows already set this morning. There will be more to come in this morning so check back to see the updates.
City: New Record [Old Record]
%u2022 Caribou, ME: -33 [-27 in 1984]
%u2022 Houlton, ME: -33 [-26 in 2004]
%u2022 Waterloo, IA: -34** [-26 in 1977]
%u2022 St. Cloud, MN: -33 [-31 in 1977]
%u2022 Montpelier, VT: -24 [-21 in 1994]
**ties coldest temp on record 3/1/1962

"A single day's temperature doesn't mean jack squat. And when it comes to global climate change, a single year (or even decade) doesn't mean jack squat."
Or even a hundred years!!

We are rightfully worried about our impact, both our current data and theories point towards GW, but that said our data is limited and our understanding and models even more so. It is quite possible that some overlooked mechanisms will kick in and the effect will be different then anticipated, ...

Arrhenius published his calculations of the effect of CO2 in Philosophical Magazine in 1896. From his original calculations the mean surface temperature should currently be around 120 to 140 degrees F. In a later paper (according to Lord Monckton) he admitted that his climate sensitivity (4.00 K/2xCO2) was too high and that the Stefan-Boltzmann value (1.05 K/2xCO2) was closer to correct.