backtop

Print 68 comment(s) - last by KoS.. on Jul 27 at 5:45 PM

Rate of surface melt from July 8 (left) to July 12 (right)  (Source: NASA)
NASA scientists say it's due to burst of warm air that lingered in that area during July

NASA scientists were baffled when satellites recorded the Greenland ice sheet melting at a faster rate over a four-day period this month than at any other time in its history.
 
Between July 8 and July 12 of this year, NASA satellite data showed that the Greenland ice sheet had melted significantly. In fact, the three satellites reported that the area of melting ice in the sheet increased from 40 percent to 97 percent in that four-day period. 
 
"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?" said Son Nghiem from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. 
 
Nghiem confirmed the results along with climatologists Marco Tedesco from the City University of New York and Thomas Mote from the University of Georgia.
 
While temperatures went back to normal around July 21, scientists wondered what caused the rapid melting. The verdict? A burst of warm air that lingered in that area from July 8 until about July 16. According to Jason Box, a glaciologist from Ohio State University, this is the seventh summer in a row that a warm burst of air visited the ice sheet in the summer months. However, the massive rate of melting in the four-day period was anything but typical. 
 
Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said the intense melt of the Greenland ice sheet was "unprecedented," and that this makes for strong evidence in favor of global warming. 
 
"What we are seeing at the highest elevations may be a sort of sign of what is going on across the ice sheet," said Zwally. "At lower elevations on the ice sheet, we are seeing earlier melting, melting later in the season, and more frequent melting over the last 30 years and that is consistent of what you would expect with a warming climate."

The scientists are now concerned about the future of the Greenland ice sheet. While they say rapid melting occurs about every 150 years, there could be severe consequences for this kind of speedy melting. The sea level could rise and warm the arctic, according to Goddard glaciologist Lora Koenig.

"If we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome," said Koenig.

Source: The Guardian


Comments     Threshold


Yawn...
By MZperX on 7/26/2012 12:12:36 PM , Rating: 4
Bla bla bla... severe consequences... bla bla bla...

They themselves point out that the melting is cyclical, and that this has occurred and re-occurred in the past. What "serious consequences" are they talking about? Are we already dealing with them? Are they yet to manifest? When?

More climate alarmist crapola.




RE: Yawn...
By geddarkstorm on 7/26/2012 12:24:01 PM , Rating: 5
And then everything on Greenland re-froze. Yay for 150 year events happening right on time.

There aren't any "severe" consequences; just the constant adaptation of life and civilization to ever changing conditions (the Fertile Crescent which birthed Mesopotamian civilization sure isn't a fertile crescent anymore, being mostly arid and desert now). The times in geological history with the highest amounts of life and diversity were all hotter than today, considerably so (17 C hotter if talking about the Cretaceous). And then there's been a recent published paper that shows CO2 lags temperature changes in geological history by about 200 years or more; and even on shorter monthly time scales, if one looks at CO2 traces and temperature traces, CO2 always lags, and never precedes a change. Doesn't mean it has no effect (it's still a thermal insulator by absorbing IR radiation), but it seems to be a "tag along" and not the driver of temperature changes over time.

The thing is, we don't really know what causes the swings of the Earth's climate from glacial to inter-glacial (the current) states. We aren't even as hot right now in this inter-glacial as we were earlier in it (the Holocene maximum), and if looked at over a longer period of time, we are already on the downward trend towards the next glacial period.

Climate really is fascinating, a lot we do not know. But one thing we do know is we don't have a thick enough atmosphere for a real "greenhouse". It isn't simply composition (both Venus and Mars are 90% CO2, yet Mars is cold enough to snow out CO2 to form its polar "ice" caps, while Venus is hot enough to melt some soft metals), but density and thus thermal capacity of an atmosphere that truly gives the temperature range possible, it seems. And then there's our oceans, which vastly out weight the atmosphere in thermal capacity and thus thermal inertia. A lot of stuff to consider in trying to figure out how it all works.


RE: Yawn...
By trunkmonkey on 7/26/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn...
By Ammohunt on 7/26/2012 1:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like it or not, what we depend on to keep our civilization running smooth can be rendered useless by the smallest of natural phenomenon.


Some of us have prepared for that eventuality. It would be natures way to "cull the herd" so to speak; i am doing everything i can to make sure my family doesn't get culled.


RE: Yawn...
By trunkmonkey on 7/26/12, Rating: 0
RE: Yawn...
By Ammohunt on 7/26/2012 2:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think your own ancestors did? some of them must have had some drive and smarts because you are here. Survival of the species is crap existence ever study human history? even the most advanced societies and civilizations crash and burn for lesser reasons than climate change.Go ahead and curl up and die without your microwave more resources for those that still have the survival instinct.


RE: Yawn...
By trunkmonkey on 7/26/12, Rating: 0
RE: Yawn...
By Spuke on 7/26/2012 3:49:55 PM , Rating: 4
I'm only going to say this once. WHO CARES!!!!! Every 10, 15, 20 years, people invent a new boogeyman. Then we wallow in despair for another 10 years and, POOF, we collectively forget about the previous 10 years of fear and create a new one. Wash, rinse, repeat.

PS - See you in ten years for Boogeyman Part 4,000,000.


RE: Yawn...
By trunkmonkey on 7/26/12, Rating: 0
RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 4:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Before anybody starts with the tired rhetoric of "this has all happened before" and "it will happen again" and "at one time it was hotter" and "at one time it was much colder", you really need to stop and put things in perspective. One thing that is left out from the details of those previous events is that there was never 7 billion human mouths to feed!


RE: Yawn...
By Iketh on 7/26/2012 6:23:03 PM , Rating: 3
yea, instead there were woolly mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers, dinosaurs, and countless other lost species... and wildfires burned until there was nothing left to burn...

what was your point again?


RE: Yawn...
By JediJeb on 7/26/2012 9:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm too tired to do all the math again or search for the posts here where I did, but it goes like this. Even if we quadruple the current population, we can place ever single human being on Greenland in their own nice sized house and still have room left over. Then we can use the rest of the globe to grow food on. We are not going to run out of food anytime soon, nor lose the ability to grow it in sufficient amounts. And no, droughts and famines are not what are causing wide spread hunger today, it is the stupid political climates in those regions that cause it.

7 billion humans are not the problem or driving force of current climate change, nature is. And it has happened before and will again and the sooner be lose our arrogant superiority complex and understand that humans are at the mercy of nature and not the other way around the sooner we will be wise enough to survive what nature can throw at us,


RE: Yawn...
By Dr of crap on 7/27/2012 8:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
It'll thin the heard then.
We have to many mouths to feed as it is. The planet can't sustain the population as it is, yet any more increase, so we need some kind of control, some form of natrual reduction.


RE: Yawn...
By Ammohunt on 7/26/2012 6:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
I do not live in fear of any doomsday scenarios; climate change being the least of those. I am saying that only a fool depends 100% on society 100% of the time for their own existence. Simple measures/precautions can ensure continued existence no matter what disaster befalls humankind next(short of sol exploding). This is basic common sense something judging by your post above that you are evidently in short supply of.


RE: Yawn...
By JediJeb on 7/26/2012 10:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's sad how far this country has fallen when pulling together to reach a goal (mitigating climate change) is labeled elitist, anti American, and a conspiracy.


That is assuming climate change can be mitigated. If current climate change is mostly a natural climate cycle taking place, then the only way to mitigate climate change is to overpower the Earth and force it into having a climate of our choosing, I don't think we are anywhere near that powerful now, though most politicians want you to believe they are.


RE: Yawn...
By theArchMichael on 7/26/2012 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but I think the common sense approach to any "preparation" would be to try and stop the actual culling, if possible.
Most sane people would prefer humanity avoid an extinction level event rather than buy big crates of tuna fish and duct tape and search the internet for cannibal recipes.


RE: Yawn...
By TSS on 7/26/2012 4:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Most sane people wouldn't rebuild their house after a tornado destroyed it for the 10th time, either. Give nature a break :p

I recently saw the official forcast for my nation change at 1 AM, with the forcast for the next day going from 26C and sunny to 18C and rainy. They also updated the night forcasts down about 5 degrees celcius, to about the same temperature the gauge on my balcony showed. But we're certain enough that the temperature will be 1C higher in 100 years.

I refuse to belive we know anything worthwhile about the climate when i still have to hear tomorrow has a "50% chance of rain". As long as we know nothing about it it's pointless to try and "fix" anything. You're only making things worse whatever you do.


RE: Yawn...
By JediJeb on 7/26/2012 9:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are several flaws in your logic and comparisons. First off, comparing effects of climate shifts now to what occurred earlier in the geologic record is meaningless. The major reason is that way back when there wasn't a fragile and complex man-made infrastructure in place, essential to support the 7 billion members of our species. I'm left wondering exactly how you would define a negative effect during the Cretaceous period? Extinction events? Because that's what happened. How does the fact that there was a high diversity of species then, relate to potential climate effects on humans today? It doesn't. Remember what a small tsunami wave did to coastal Japan? Wiped out a city and melted down the cores of a couple nuclear reactors. Like it or not, what we depend on to keep our civilization running smooth can be rendered useless by the smallest of natural phenomenon. It's all been built based on conditions observed by people during their lifetimes.


I think you just proved his point, that humans are at the mercy of nature and not the other way around.

Climate shifts that occurred in earlier geologic times are very relevant because they give us an idea of what to expect nature to do. Those who think that since our current civilization was build during a more or less golden era in climate history, that we should try our best to make our current civilization continue as is because the climate will always revolve around our needs, are the ones who will be the end of us as a civilization. Nature is not static, therefore our civilization can not be static either. We must be ready and willing to adapt or we will go the way of the Mammoth and millions of other species that have graced this planet with their presence in times past, who just could not change with the times.

quote:
The major reason is that way back when there wasn't a fragile and complex man-made infrastructure in place, essential to support the 7 billion members of our species.


If we want to survive that infrastructure has to become more flexible and resilient. It doesn't have to be complex(for many thousands of years of human history it wasn't and we survived) it just has to be adaptable. It is sort of like the Grasshopper and Ant fable, we can either be like the grasshopper and throw parties and have long winded discussions about how great our current climate is and how bad it will be if it changes, or we can be like the ant and actually work to prepare for the long winter to come( or long summer, whichever happens).


RE: Yawn...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2012 12:25:05 PM , Rating: 1
LOL yeah. But I love this one.

quote:
NASA scientists were baffled when satellites recorded the Greenland ice sheet melting at a faster rate over a four-day period this month than at any other time in its history.


If it took a satellite just to discover this melting, how can we state authoritatively that this is more melting in a 4 day period than ANY time in the Earth's history?


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 12:38:41 PM , Rating: 3
The scientist didn't say that, the journalist did. There is often a huge disconnect between science and journalism. Scientist use a very specific vocabulary and terminology when describing observations. Journalist, and the general public do not recognize the nuances. So you get an article through the lens of a journalist which is then read by the general public.

You would never see a scientist use the term "baffled" in any journal publication. If they did, they wouldn't have a career for very long.


RE: Yawn...
By Dr of crap on 7/26/2012 2:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
These scientists REALLY believe that in 4 days the entire Greenland land mass meted it's snow cover???

Really?? Do you know the kind of heat that would require??

I lieve near the 3M main campus. In the winter they pile up the snow from the parking lots in a HUGH pile that you can drive by while entering a freeway. After each snowfall the layers add up and so does the dirt and whatever is pickup from the plows. So as the temps rise you get an ice blob with dirt and garbage on top. This ice blob can last into June, even though we get temps into the 80s in April and May. My point is this is just a small are of ice and it can survive many days with high temps.
HOW did the many, many, many square miles of the Greenland land mass melt so much so fast??? The mass of frozen land underneath it alone would help to keep it from happening so fast!

I'm calling BS on this and I've seen it all over.


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/12, Rating: 0
RE: Yawn...
By Dr of crap on 7/26/2012 2:43:33 PM , Rating: 1
Yo, mister know it all -
What I said was it would take a massive amount of heat to melt that mount of snow in 4 days in the artic.

Did you do any measurements? Did you do any calculations?
Nope, then it's just that you believe ALL that you read from the stupid media!


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 3:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
I am not believing the "stupid media". What is exactly a "massive amount of heat"? What is "that amount of snow?" Do you know that I am actually referring to the comments and observations of the actual scientists, not the media!!

And no, I have not done measurements. The point is, you can't make a blanket statement based on your beliefs that counters evidence based investigation (science). You have to do the experiments that supports an alternative hypothesis. So I don't have to do measurements, experimentation, I as am just stating the observations made. You are one that called BS on the whole thing, so it is your burden to prove it! And your snow pile observation does not cut it.


RE: Yawn...
By Dr of crap on 7/27/2012 8:15:21 AM , Rating: 2
AND I'm am just stating my observations relating to my knowledge in living in a snow area of the country.

I have seen, as I posted, the amount of heat a large block of ice can withstand WITHOUT melting to fast.

Now take a snow pack with frozen ground underneath it and in an area of many thousands of miles. Add to that the fact that it's surrounded my water just above freezing. It would take weeks or longer to melt this snow, not 4 days.

That's why I call BS. Oh and scientists always tell the truth? Does global warming and it many covers ups come to mind?


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/27/2012 11:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
Again, it is your burden to provide direct evidence that the melt did not occur. You can't just say I saw this in my back yard, so therefor the melt didn't happen in Greenland. You can't make a simple correlation like that.

The melt has been verified by other satellites and ground observations.

quote:
Now take a snow pack with frozen ground underneath it and in an area of many thousands of miles. Add to that the fact that it's surrounded my water just above freezing. It would take weeks or longer to melt this snow, not 4 days.


Again, you can't make that statement. You have extended your backyard model and applied it to Greenland. How do you take something for which you have no quantifiable measurements (your backyard snow pile) apply it to something that you have no quantifiable measurements (Greenland and its ice sheet) and then magically come up with a quantifiable result.
quote:
It would take weeks or longer to melt this snow, not 4 days.
You just gave a definite, quantifiable prediction based on your imagination. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.


RE: Yawn...
By Dr of crap on 7/27/2012 8:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
And looking through the postings I see you posted this -
"The scientist didn't say that, the journalist did. There is often a huge disconnect between science and journalism."

Hmmmmm, not sure what to make of that statement and then you coming after my post.


RE: Yawn...
By Wurum on 7/26/2012 2:55:57 PM , Rating: 3
You need to calm down and re-read the article.

"the three satellites reported that the area of melting ice in the sheet increased from 40 percent to 97"

The area of melting increased. From the picture, it looks like the whole ice sheet was experiencing melting, not that the whole thing melted away and there was no ice left at all.


RE: Yawn...
By JediJeb on 7/26/2012 10:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
When you look at the photo all of the "white" area seems to disappear, which on first impression leads one to believe the whole ice cap disappeared. What they actually did was simply color the melting parts red which shows most of it is experiencing at least some level of melting, maybe even just a little water on the top, not that it actually disappeared. Publishing that photo alone without a proper explanation is poor reporting at best.


RE: Yawn...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2012 3:03:14 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think that's what they are saying happened, but the article's wording seems to give one that impression.


RE: Yawn...
By trunkmonkey on 7/26/2012 5:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ice cores. 'History' refers to ice sheet not planet.


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 12:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
Huh... again another post by someone who is ignorant of science.

Yes they say that "similar" scenarios have been occurred in the past. And they are very careful to state that they cannot make any conclusions as to the cause or whether it is indicative of trend. But they do say it is consistent with a warming climate. Consistent, they are not saying that without a doubt this is caused by climate change, all they are saying is this is consistent with a warming climate. Get it?

Where do you see alarmist crapola? You see it in your head because that is your agenda .


RE: Yawn...
By MZperX on 7/26/2012 12:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OdinOrion: Where do you see alarmist crapola?

Hmm... how about the vague yet ominous statement about "severe consequences"?
You're right, that's not alarmist. At all.


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 1:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
Again, that's not a quote from the scientist, its a quote from the journalist. Learn to separate the two. Again you are reading into what you want to read. Again, there is a disconnect between the terminology used by scientists, that used by journalists, and what the general public understands.


RE: Yawn...
By knutjb on 7/26/2012 1:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said the intense melt of the Greenland ice sheet was "unprecedented," and that this makes for strong evidence in favor of global warming.
When they use "unprecedented" that is not alarmist on an event that happens like clockwork every 150 years or so? The 150 years comes from ice core data from samples drilled to the bedrock in Greenland. As much as they have drilled the Greenland ice sheet, for NASA to add speculative, 'potentially dire' consequences to an expected event IS alarmist.


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 2:08:31 PM , Rating: 4
Where do you see that they expect "dire" consequences??? And there is a qualifier to your statement; "potentially.

Again huge disconnect of terminology and context between scientist, journalists, and the general public.

Here is a few quotes left out of this article for you to tool over. The first one is where the quote unprecedented comes from. And it also explains why that term was used.

"The melting seen in the satellite data is unprecedented , as it extends all the way across the ice sheet including the summit, which is located 3,200 m above sea level. Melting is usually limited to less than 2000m elevation."

"When we see melt in places that we haven't seen before, at least in a long period of time, it makes you sit up and ask what's happening," Nasa chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said.

"It's a big signal, the meaning of which we're going to sort out for years to come ."

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average . With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time ."

"While this is very unusual, as always we cannot attribute any individual extreme event to climate change: We will have to wait and see if more such events occur in the next few years to understand its significance for both the climate and the health of the ice sheet."

How is this alarmist??? Doesn't seem they (NASA)is blowing anything out of proportion other then to state the observation. In fact, the are very careful to state that they are not jumping to conclusions. That it will take several years to make any conclusion.


RE: Yawn...
By knutjb on 7/26/2012 7:43:31 PM , Rating: 1
Since you seam to have missed it the first time.
quote:
Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said the intense melt of the Greenland ice sheet was "unprecedented," and that this makes for strong evidence in favor of global warming.
Those are very strong words for an event that has been occurring for a very long time. Hence, ALARMIST.
quote:
"When we see melt in places that we haven't seen before, at least in a long period of time, it makes you sit up and ask what's happening," Nasa chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said.
Given this was the first time they were able to observe this event from a satellite or anywhere else, I would expect the whole event to be new to all those alive today.
quote:
"It's a big signal, the meaning of which we're going to sort out for years to come ."
Pretty much all climatic data and its interpretation will take years to sort out. What makes this so special before years of research and evaluation?
quote:
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average . With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time ."

"While this is very unusual , as always we cannot attribute any individual extreme event to climate change: We will have to wait and see if more such events occur in the next few years to understand its significance for both the climate and the health of the ice sheet."
Ok, so which is it? On time as expected or very unusual?

If this is expected, which it is, why the implication of negative events now if it will take them years to sort out? To me THAT is alarmist, by talking very publicly about possibilities that have yet to be proven one way or the other. Finally, why are you marginalizing NASA's strong words?


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 9:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Since you seem to have missed it. The quote I gave above is the actual quote of the scientist. Here it is again:

"The melting seen in the satellite data is unprecedented , as it extends all the way across the ice sheet including the summit, which is located 3,200 m above sea level. Melting is usually limited to less than 2000m elevation."

Its not "alarmist", it simply states facts. By "alarmist", and the people who use that term, seem to think that its an exaggeration based on an agenda. Again you seem to have missed to point that the " intense melt that you highlighted are the journalists words . But if you look at the actual quote from the scientist, not taken out of context, I can't see how its an exaggeration.

quote:
quote: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average . With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time ." "While this is very unusual , as always we cannot attribute any individual extreme event to climate change: We will have to wait and see if more such events occur in the next few years to understand its significance for both the climate and the health of the ice sheet."

Ok, so which is it? On time as expected or very unusual?


Something can be expected or known and still very rare or unusual. You are cherry picking quotes, pulling them out of context, then putting them together to try to show that they contradict each other. I don't see a contradiction here.

Should I mention the fact that the first quote in your supposed quandary is by Lora Koenig from NASA, and the second is by Prof Eric Wolff, from the British Antarctic Survey! They weren't even in the same room together.

quote:
Finally, why are you marginalizing NASA's strong words?


I not marginalizing their words or their observations, you are misunderstanding what they are saying. If anything you are the "alarmist". By exaggerating and misrepresenting, by pulling quotes out of context, by having a knee jerk reaction to an observation.

The article here is not helping, it does an equally poor job. But don't equate that to the actual observation, which by the way, has been verified by individuals on the ground in Greenland.


RE: Yawn...
By knutjb on 7/26/2012 10:11:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"The melting seen in the satellite data is unprecedented , as it extends all the way across the ice sheet including the summit, which is located 3,200 m above sea level. Melting is usually limited to less than 2000m elevation."
How are they applying what standard of how much is supposed to melt on an event that happens every 150 years. If it was greater than their estimates how did they determine said estimate? How can it be unprecedented if it takes years to analyze? There are too many 'speculative' conflicting comments from those who should be objectively analyzing and not publicizing.
quote:
Should I mention the fact that the first quote in your supposed quandary is by Lora Koenig from NASA, and the second is by Prof Eric Wolff, from the British Antarctic Survey! They weren't even in the same room together.
So. Just because they are so and so only means they might be correct, it doesn't guarantee it. No one should be held in such high regard that they go unquestioned as to their methods, just ask Harvard. That doesn't imply rude questions, just complete explanations.

What your are missing, entirely, is that speculating in this manner is wholly inappropriate for NASA. On one hand they implied conclusions, on the other they said it would take years to conclude. That is not science it's politics. NASA is not supposed to do that but that is what they have done here. I have read several other, more complete, articles and not all climatologists are in lock-step agreement with NASA on this.


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/27/2012 12:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How are they applying what standard of how much is supposed to melt on an event that happens every 150 years. If it was greater than their estimates how did they determine said estimate? How can it be unprecedented if it takes years to analyze? There are too many 'speculative' conflicting comments from those who should be objectively analyzing and not publicizing.


NASA made on observation. Period. They have explicitly stated that it is far too early to draw conclusion about cause or effect. But this does not undermine or refute the observation.

They are not saying it is unprecedented in the sense that nothing like this has ever happened before in the history of the Earth. In fact, they have identified a ~150 year cycle. They are saying it is unprecedented in the scope of observation. As in, we haven't observed anything like this before. Its not a contradiction.

Again, comprehension is key! They are not saying that it will take many years to confirm the observation. They are saying it will take many years to draw any conclusions about the observation. Do you see that these are two different things? Are you suggesting that the should say nothing about the observation until they have a complete explanation to cause and effect? Again you don't seem to have a good understanding of science and how it works. Again, NASA has explicitly stated they aren't drawing conclusions. How is is that "alarmist" to simply report an observation and not draw conclusions? Its seems to be the exact opposite. In fact, it is overly cautious.

quote:
So. Just because they are so and so only means they might be correct, it doesn't guarantee it. No one should be held in such high regard that they go unquestioned as to their methods, just ask Harvard. That doesn't imply rude questions, just complete explanations.


They are not saying this. Again, you fail to understand science. Questioning is at the very heart of science. Questioning is science. Its not science without it. Scientist love proving other scientists wrong. And I remind you that all NASA did was report on an observation. And they even stated that they are trying to confirm the observation with ground data. Again, no conclusions about cause and effect and what this means to the world, its just an observation.

quote:
What your are missing, entirely, is that speculating in this manner is wholly inappropriate for NASA. On one hand they implied conclusions, on the other they said it would take years to conclude. That is not science it's politics. NASA is not supposed to do that but that is what they have done here.


No, there is a comprehension issue again. They are reporting an observation, period. NASA has stated, as clear as can be, that they are not drawing any conclusions from the observation. How is this politics?

quote:
I have read several other, more complete, articles and not all climatologists are in lock-step agreement with NASA on this.


Um, NASA has observed an ice melt. They have not drawn any conclusions. How do climatologists fit in with the observation? Are they saying the melt didn't occur? Post links BTW to the several other articles. If there is any mention of climate, then it has nothing to do with the observation of the ice melt. The ice melt is what NASA is reporting.


RE: Yawn...
By JediJeb on 7/26/2012 10:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
To call something that happens on a regular basis "unprecedented" is rather odd since the fact that it happens every 150 years is precedence for that very event.

It is sort of like saying "We are having an unprecedented high tide this evening, and we will have another tomorrow and every day for the next year"

At best it is a poor choice of adjective, maybe they should have instead said it was long cycle event that they have the exciting experience to witness in their lifetime. That would have conveyed the same strong emotion without creating the hysteria that "unprecedented" can cause.


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/27/2012 12:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
All they (NASA) are saying it is unprecedented within the scope of observation. They are not saying that nothing similar has ever happened before, or will never happen again. Its not the best choice for casual reading, but if you actually take the time to keep things in context, they are not making a ubiquitous statement. If you care to dig deeper, on NASA's own web page they quantify the observation period as 30 years.

Poor reporting, nothing else.


RE: Yawn...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2012 1:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes except journalists are who sways the public opinion and the politicians, not scientists.

What point are you even trying to make here?


RE: Yawn...
By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 2:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
That is the point!!!!


RE: Yawn...
By dsx724 on 7/26/12, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn...
By JediJeb on 7/26/12, Rating: 0
RE: Yawn...
By PaFromFL on 7/26/2012 2:02:30 PM , Rating: 1
Hooray! Maybe this signals the return of the Medieval Warm Period. I prefer farmland to glaciers. If the rest of the Arctic ice would melt, many trade routes would become much shorter.


RE: Yawn...
By dgingerich on 7/26/2012 2:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Most people don't seem to understand that the Vikings had colonies flourishing all over Greenland for centuries before the little ice age. It isn't called "Greenland" because of the color of the snow. I'm glad you understand this, it shows there is actually hope for humanity, at least a little.


RE: Yawn...
By NellyFromMA on 7/27/2012 10:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
If you payed attention, it's the rate at which it melted. The volume at which it melted hasn't accurred since 150 years, but the rate, over a span of 4 days, has NEVER happened.

I don't buy into 'global warming' (climate change, on the other hand I am more open too) but maybe don't be so close minded to the other side of the arguement?

Just beccause I'm not convinced of something doesn't mean I rule it out altogether. That's just not sensible.


GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals
By KoS on 7/26/2012 4:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
A good read and I think a fairly well balanced one at that.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/1114...

My pull quote..

quote:
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.




By OdinOrion on 7/26/2012 4:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't doubt the quote, but you have to understand that identifying mistakes in hypothesis, procedure, statistical application, and/or conclusion is part of the scientific process. And yes, there have been many situations of bad science that resulted in the end of careers and reputation. Cold fusion? Hwang Woo-suk?

The point is, the scientist is not burdened with admitting a mistake, because the mistake will be exposed through the process of science itself.


RE: GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals
By KoS on 7/27/2012 3:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Until humans are not involved with science. There will always be a chance of corrupting it. Humans are not perfect. This blind faith in the process is very mis-guided. One can see that in many areas of our society today.

One can have the best hypothesis, scientific process or whatever. If no one reports on it, people turn a blind eye or try to bury it, then what?

I lost faith in the AGW crowd when they started to change terminology. It was man-made global warming, global warming, man-made climate change, climate change, well....which one is it? It seem everytime they ran into opposition they would change the name inorder to confusion people.

Climate will always warm or cool, no matter what we do. We don't drive the direction the climate is going. The drivers of the climate are forces beyond our control. Like the Sun, rotation and tilt of the earth, distance of Moon from Earth, cosmic rays and the like. <note - I'm talking about global climate, not micro climates, which we do impact significantly>

We only influence whether or not that warming period is warmer or cooler than it would ordinarily have been. The same applies during cooling periods.

We don't cause the "graph line" to cycle up and down. Rather the we influence the shift of the "graph line" during those ups and downs.

A warmer climate is more beneficial than a cooler climate, over all. I really dont' what to move because another glacier covers where I live, for the third time in history.


By OdinOrion on 7/27/2012 5:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Until humans are not involved with science. There will always be a chance of corrupting it. Humans are not perfect. This blind faith in the process is very mis-guided. One can see that in many areas of our society today.


Blind faith? There is not blind faith. Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith belongs in a church. Its evidence based investigation. Its not belief or faith. Its evidence based investigation. Educate yourself!

And yes, there is a chance for corruption, and all scientist are intimately aware of this possibility. Scientist are not infallible, as they are human. There have been cases were careers have been damaged and ruined because of a failure in the process. But science is self checking. Without the self checking, it is not science at all. Do you even know what you are talking about? No, you are ignorant of the process, and I bet you refuse to even try to understand it. Science some how offends your disposition. You are trying to make a point over which you have no understanding.

quote:
Climate will always warm or cool, no matter what we do. We don't drive the direction the climate is going. The drivers of the climate are forces beyond our control. Like the Sun, rotation and tilt of the earth, distance of Moon from Earth, cosmic rays and the like. <note - I'm talking about global climate, not micro climates, which we do impact significantly>
.

Yes, without the sun, it would be very very cold here. No amount of CO2 would change that. Whats your point?

quote:
We only influence whether or not that warming period is warmer or cooler than it would ordinarily have been. The same applies during cooling periods. We don't cause the "graph line" to cycle up and down. Rather the we influence the shift of the "graph line" during those ups and downs.


So wait, you are actually admitting that we do in fact impact global climate?

quote:
A warmer climate is more beneficial than a cooler climate, over all. I really dont' what to move because another glacier covers where I live, for the third time in history.


Through what level of expertise have you come to that conclusion? You are making a very broad and generalized statement based on your own beliefs and feelings. Which is why you have a very difficult time understanding how science works.


By KoS on 7/27/2012 5:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
Look jackass....knock off the condescending attitude.

I'm well aware how science works or doesn't work...I've been around the block a time or two. From the way you talk, you really have no clue what is really going on, like at lot of people. I don't go walking around with rose colored glasses on.

Again please stop with the condescending attitude. I see and hear what happens behind close doors. I've been lucky in that regard. Trust me or not, people shouldn't wholly trust people in positions of authority, whether high levels in goverment, non-profits, universities or business. Granted there are always exceptions to the rule.

You do know blind-faith was a figure of speech? Has nothing to due with religion.

Yes I believe we have some impact on the climate. We don't drive the overall direction of the climate, that is all I was trying to say. Can't you grasp something so simple?

Maybe you should read the linked article from Stanford before belittling someone's conculsions or their beliefs on what is more benefical to humans. Or even both.

If want to talk with someone...might what to rethink how much of a jackass you are coming across as! I'm right and you are wrong and I know best is geting old.


"Ever..."
By CrazyBernie on 7/26/2012 12:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
.... 'cause NASA's been around that long.




RE: "Ever..."
By Wurum on 7/26/2012 2:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Have you not heard? NASA now has a time machine, they went back and made observations.


RE: "Ever..."
By trunkmonkey on 7/26/2012 4:29:28 PM , Rating: 3
That time machine is called an ice core sample. Neither new or advanced, just really old ice.


Fixed
By Ammohunt on 7/26/2012 1:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The sea level could rise and warm the arctic.....


Back to pre mini ice-age levels and temps.....




RE: Fixed
By dgingerich on 7/26/2012 2:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno about you, but I like the idea of more farmland and warmer temps. I don't like snow all that much. OK, really, I hate it.

The downside would be a return of the arid conditions (far less rainfall) in the SW US, leading to water shortages. I guess I'll head north.


Oh sheet!
By hduser on 7/26/2012 6:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
Can't believe no one has said it yet.




RE: Oh sheet!
By JediJeb on 7/26/2012 10:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
It was ice baby,

Da duh duh da duh naa

It was ice baby,

Da duh duh da duh naa

(ugh I must be channeling Vanilla Ice today)


concern for the future
By PaFromFL on 7/27/2012 8:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
"The scientists are now concerned about the future of the Greenland ice sheet. While they say rapid melting occurs about every 150 years, there could be severe consequences for this kind of speedy melting. The sea level could rise and warm the arctic, according to Goddard glaciologist Lora Koenig."

With NASA budget cuts, maybe the space scientists are more worried about becoming extinct and want to dip into Chicken Little's funds. Science is observing and modeling the dynamics of the ice sheet. Pulp fiction is drawing the conclusion there will be "severe consequences".

If we don't work on protection from meteors, there will be "severe consequences". Now where's my research money?

If we don't figure out a way to prevent super-volcanoes, there will be severe consequences. Give me some grant money to study the problem.




RE: concern for the future
By Florinator on 7/27/2012 11:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
Where do I send my donation? ;-)


Growing Consensus
By Cascader on 7/27/2012 12:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
As a petroleum engineer focusing on discovery, exploration, and spatial modeling I've had the privilege of working with a wide array of scientists and experts in their respective fields.

Inevitably the topic of global warming arises. These discussions rarely illicit opinion or conjecture but are instead predominantly grounded in factual evidence and extrapolating hard data.

It should be common knowledge how "fossil fuels" were created over millions of years due to geological processes. What is not widely known is the fact that organic matter responsible for these vast deposits accumulated during a couple brief periods of intense global warming with high atmospheric temperatures and elevated co2 levels.

Our entire way of life now hinges on extraction and consumption of these carbon stockpiles. It took millions of years of organic growth and geologic processes to convert sunlight into dense chains of hydrocarbons...yet we are burning these substances in a relative blink of an eye.

It therefore makes logical sense to most in the industry that continued exploitation of these hydrocarbons will release the stored carbon and return the planet to the conditions in which these hydrocarbons formed. The kicker being that a release of co2 on this magnitude over such a short amount of time is totally unprecedented.

Human beings will survive and adapt, but it will be a very precarious situation for a planet of 7+billion to thrive. One simply has to take into account a fragile infrastructure, economic instability, and a looming peak liquid fuels supply to realize our current path is grossly unsustainable.




RE: Growing Consensus
By OdinOrion on 7/27/2012 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
Stop... your making too much sense. I don't want to here it. Its all a conspiracy. What do scientist know? They make stuff up all the time to preserve their existence. There aren't any checks and balance in science. Its all left wing propaganda. The earth is flat, I know this because when I look across my yard, I can see that it is flat. The sun revolves around the earth, an I know that because I can watch it move across the sky. No propaganda scientist will ever convince me otherwise.

No more facts, they are scary. If we lower CO2 emissions that will cost money. Its not going to cost us anything to move millions of people from the cost. It will not cost a dime to move farms. Less rain in the southwest; no problem, we will just set up desalination plants. They don't cost any money. They are super efficient too. In fact they actually make energy and desalinate at the same time. Its a miracle of thermodynamics.


How times have changed
By leviathan05 on 7/26/2012 12:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
30 years ago parents worried that their kids would grow up and be gay. Now I fear that my child might grow up and be a glaciologist.




I think...
By Florinator on 7/26/2012 4:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming is real and it's happening (IMHO). Whether humans caused it or are accelerating it is really irrelevant. Is the humanity going to change its ways to try to slow down or reverse it? No friggin' chance. It's unethical for the industralized nations to scold the developing countries (India, China, etc) for building too many coal-powered power plants. That's not the way to go...

I think we need to figure out how to cope with it; maybe some large-scale geo-engineering projects, such as blowing sulfur in the stratosphere to block some of the sun and cool down the planet (see the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 that lowered gloabl temperatures for 2 years), which was actually estimated by experts to cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars (which is peanuts in terms of global ROI).




Let's fix the headline
By wookie1 on 7/26/2012 5:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
"NASA Satellites Catch Greenland Ice Sheet's Most Rapid Melting Rate Ever" seen by satellites.

Satellites haven't been around very long compared to the Greenland ice sheet. It's up to 2 friggin miles thick!




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki