Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

[joseephuss]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/24jul_greenland/

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

July 24, 2012: For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

"The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story," said Tom Wagner, NASA's cryosphere program manager in Washington. "Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system."

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Yet some will still say global climate change is a myth.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Do not turn this into a political debate thread.

Warning given.

[Reality]

Yet some will still say global climate change is a myth.

You're just afraid that americans will move to Canada if it gets too warm here, aren't ya? :D :D

#reality

[AbeBeta]

Do not turn this into a political debate thread.

Warning given.

Wouldn't that be a debate over science?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You're just afraid that americans will move to Canada if it gets too warm here, aren't ya? :D :D

#reality

nah, would increase the tax base and help us fund our health care, you would just have to drop your accents and use the letter "u" more.

[CashMan]

nah, would increase the tax base and help us fund our health care, you would just have to drop your accents and use the letter "u" more.


What are you talking aboot?

[NorthTexan95]

The glacial scientents who are the experts disagree with NASA's scientists.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/26/skeptics-put-freeze-on-nasa-hot-air-about-greenland-ice/?test=latestnews

[The30YardSlant]

Yet some will still say global climate change is a myth.

It isn't a myth, it's simply a cyclical process being mislabeled by a large prcentage of our society due to ignorance or an agenda.

Most reputable scientists realize that it's a natural process that humans have almost no influence on. Data from past climate shifts indicate that the earth reach far higher average temperatures as well as far lower temperatures multiple times just within the last 50,000 years. In addition, we account for less than 3% of the CO2 being put into the atmosphere and less than 10% of other pollutants.

[Sam I Am]

Yet some will still say global climate change is a myth.

Global climate change doesn't need people and pollution to happen. It happens all by itself. Of course, we definitely aren't helping the situation.

Even if we stopped all pollution, climate change would still happen. It's happened many times before without our help and it will happen again and again.

[Sam I Am]

Most reputable scientists realize that it's a natural process that humans have almost no influence on.

That isn't true and any *REAL* scientist knows that isn't true. Any scientist who says otherwise is either dumb as a stump or is being paid to say otherwise.

[Sam I Am]

Do not turn this into a political debate thread.

Warning given.

Warning ignored. ;)

[The30YardSlant]

That isn't true and any *REAL* scientist knows that isn't true. Any scientist who says otherwise is either dumb as a stump or is being paid to say otherwise.

Humans account for about 7% of the greenhouse gasses put into the atmosphere annually. Livestock, freshwater lakes, rainforests, volacanic eruptions and various other natural sources are all far bigger culprits than humanity. The two biggest sources of greenhouses gases? Evaporated water vapor and CO2 released from biological processes within living beings.

You could remove every last ounce of pollution released by humans and climate change will keep chugging right on along. We are powerless to so much as slow it down let alone stop it, and thus we need to stop obssessing over it.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

What are you talking aboot?

problem with your point is that no one outside of maybe the Maritimes pronounces about that way.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Global climate change doesn't need people and pollution to happen. It happens all by itself. Of course, we definitely aren't helping the situation.

Even if we stopped all pollution, climate change would still happen. It's happened many times before without our help and it will happen again and again.

yes it has but not as quickly as we are helping it along

[The30YardSlant]

yes it has but not as quickly as we are helping it along

Even if this narrative were true, so what? It's not like the average global temperature is going to reach unliveable levels, and at some point a cooling trend will begin that will last several hundred/thousand years and the cycle will repeat over and over again just as it has ever since established plant and animal life has existed. The climate isn't dictated solely by your car exhaust and to believe as much is both ignorant of the science and arrogant.

[jobberone]

We actually are supposed to be in a cooling period although that's arguable. So the increase in CO2 may be delaying that. Be nice to get a green Sahara and a wetter Australia. Of course I don't want the interior of the US to get drier but wetter. All my tomatoes are dying.

[The30YardSlant]

We actually are supposed to be in a cooling period although that's arguable. So the increase in CO2 may be delaying that. Be nice to get a green Sahara and a wetter Australia. Of course I don't want the interior of the US to get drier but wetter. All my tomatoes are dying.

Some scientists argue we are in a relative cooling trend but overall most agree we are still in a warming phase, but the mere fact that there is even a debate just furthers my point.

[RoyTheHammer]

Some scientists argue we are in a relative cooling trend but overall most agree we are still in a warming phase, but the mere fact that there is even a debate just furthers my point.

.. that scientists can't agree on what the hell is going on right now?

EDIT: By the way.. who knows what "unprecedented" means?

[The30YardSlant]

.. that scientists can't agree on what the hell is going on right now?

That it's not the simple "Humans are causing the global temperature to rise to dangerous levels" media narrative that politicians love to use.

[RoyTheHammer]

That it's not the simple "Humans are causing the global temperature to rise to dangerous levels" media narrative that politicians love to use.

Leaving the politics out of it, i've read more than a few articles on this event since it happened a few days ago, and there are scientists and researchers at NASA even, along with many others, who are worried over the recent events around Greenland.. some calling it unprecendented as we saw in this article, some who questioned if the satilite was malfunctioning because the data was so abnormal.. clearly alot of them feel that this is not just "business as usual" as you would have us believe.

[locked&loaded]

Even if this narrative were true, so what? It's not like the average global temperature is going to reach unliveable levels, and at some point a cooling trend will begin that will last several hundred/thousand years and the cycle will repeat over and over again just as it has ever since established plant and animal life has existed. The climate isn't dictated solely by your car exhaust and to believe as much is both ignorant of the science and arrogant.

Just look at the data from ice cores. since the industrial revolution co2 in the air has increased greatly. it is not a coincidence. And... most real scientists do infact degree that humans are influencing it..

[JBond]

LOL...

The term "scientist" is thrown about as if we should bow down. They are just average joes trying to earn some money. Follow the money. They are paid for the results they were told to find. That is how grants work. Deliver what I tell you to or you are fired.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aIMCxrhb91c/T3N9flvVBAI/AAAAAAAABdU/zsW892nGOtM/s640/time-magazine-ice-age-global-warming.gif

[CowboyMcCoy]

Wouldn't that be a debate over science?

Some can't separate the two. I think that's what he was saying. At least they have a hard time with it.

[T-RO]

Here in Alaska we had the deepest, most southerly ice pack in decades. The ice was so heavy it killed the crabbing season.

And we've been "enjoying" the coolest July ever.

Funny thing, the weather.

[dez_for_prez]

It isn't a myth, it's simply a cyclical process being mislabeled by a large prcentage of our society due to ignorance or an agenda.

End of debate.

[joseephuss]

.. that scientists can't agree on what the hell is going on right now?

EDIT: By the way.. who knows what "unprecedented" means?

Unprecedented has a very specific definition in this scenario. They based it off the last 30 years of satellite observation. In that time frame, this melt was unprecedented.

[Sam I Am]

.. that scientists can't agree on what the hell is going on right now?

EDIT: By the way.. who knows what "unprecedented" means?

It means literally "without prior instance". Something that has never happen or been experienced before.

Of course the only thing that makes this true (being unprecedented) is the fact that satellites recorded the event, not the event itself.

[JBond]

Unprecedented has a very specific definition in this scenario. They based it off the last 30 years of satellite observation. In that time frame, this melt was unprecedented.

30 years equals a blink of an eye in the time line of the earth. How much of your personal income are you prepared to dedicate towards eradicating "man made global warming"?

10%? 30% How much? Just curious.

Send me a big enough check and I will stop driving my SUV.

[DFWJC]

Pretty amazing stuff.

This is has happened many hundreds of times, by the way. It is not even remotely unprecedented.

Climate most certainly does change, however. No denying it. Always has, always will. And it has been pretty noticable in some areas more recently.

The melting of mountain glaciers could cause the most early impact, as about 1 billion Asians get their drinking water from the Himalayan glaciers.

But, certain areas of the world have temps going up (at least in very recent time) at a more rapid rate than many other areas....so that could be a problem seeing that we live in the short term and not in vast geologic time.

[DFWJC]

Unprecedented has a very specific definition in this scenario. They based it off the last 30 years of satellite observation. In that time frame, this melt was unprecedented.
That's correct...30 years.

[JBond]

Pretty amazing stuff.

This is has happened many hundreds of times, by the way. It is not even remotely unprecedented.

Climate most certainly does change, however. No denying it. Always has, always will. And it has been pretty noticable in some areas more recently.

The melting of mountain glaciers could cause the most early impact, as about 1 billion Asians get their drinking water from the Himalayan glaciers.

But, the Artic temps are going up (at least in very recent time) at a more rapid rate than many other areas....so that could be a problem see that we live in the short term and not in vast geologic time.

I wonder if that great big ball of fire in the sky has anything to do with it?

[Denim Chicken]

Just look at the data from ice cores. since the industrial revolution co2 in the air has increased greatly. it is not a coincidence. And... most real scientists do infact degree that humans are influencing it..

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you are being had.--Michael Crichton

[RoyTheHammer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-melt-huge-deal-or-overblown/2012/07/25/gJQAlfcT9W_blog.html

This is the best article i have found to date on the matter. Both sides of the argument have valid points.. and from what i've read, scientists mostly agree that while man made problems are affecting climate change, the extent of it is unagreed upon. Some say we are just pushing it ahead a bit, while others claim that this event, in itself, doesn't represent any break from the normal cycle. However, those same scientists do admit, if we keep seeing events like these in a short time frame, there may be a larger problem than just basic climate cycling. Pretty good assessment, i believe.

[trickblue]

Yet some will still say global climate change is a myth.

Read the article before turning it in to a political debate...

"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,"

[DFWJC]

Just look at the data from ice cores. since the industrial revolution co2 in the air has increased greatly. it is not a coincidence. And... most real scientists do infact degree that humans are influencing it..
Just some trivia here...

I don't know for sure if actual surface temp increases are coming from humans, but there is slightly more CO2.

Please don't say most "real scientist" .
In fact the number that disagree outnumbers the ones that agree about 8 to 1. It's not even close. That smaller number is more vocal because if they are right, we really do have a problem in the near term (50-100 year window).

I'm a Geologist/Geophysicist. In my community the ratio is closer to 50-1 saying we do not know and most likely man is not the cause based on geologic history.

That is NOT saying that man for sure does not cause increases in temps, it just says that we don't know that they do and there is plenty of evidence that this warming is minor compared to 100s of other times in the past before man was even around.

All I can say is "follow, the money".
100s of millions in grant money is out there for people to say man did this. The money goes away if they say otherwise.

Also, Billions are at stake for new, green, companies and things like the Chicago Exchange.

Green, of course, really IS very good. But the witch hunt is out of line.

The people that pound their fist are almost always getting paid one way or the other to do so.
In the end though, it's a good idea to at least intertain the possibilty of all scenarios.

[joseephuss]

30 years equals a blink of an eye in the time line of the earth. How much of your personal income are you prepared to dedicate towards eradicating "man made global warming"?

10%? 30% How much? Just curious.

Send me a big enough check and I will stop driving my SUV.

What the heck? I was just talking about this specific event and article. Why are you turning in into a political discussion and questioning me about money? I thought it was just a cool phenomenon that was captured by satellite.

[RoyTheHammer]

Just some trivia here...

I don't know for sure if actual surface temp increases are coming from humans, but there is slightly more CO2.

Please don't say most "real scientist" .
In fact the number that disagree outnumbers the ones that agree about 8 to 1. It's not even close. That smaller number is more vocal because if they are right, we really do have a problem in the near term (50-100 year window).

I'm a Geologist/Geophysicist. In my community the ratio is closer to 50-1 saying we do not know and most likely man is not the cause based on geologic history.

That is NOT saying that man for sure does not cause increases in temps, it just says that we don't know that they do and there is plenty of evidence that this warming is minor compared to 100s of other times in the past before man was even around.

All I can say is "follow, the money".
100s of millions in grant money is out there for people to say man did this. The money goes away if they say otherwise.

Also, Billions are at stake for new, green, companies and things like the Chicago Exchange.

Green, of course, really IS very good. But the witch hunt is out of line.

The people that pound their fist are almost always getting paid one way or the other to do so.
In the end though, it's a good idea to at least intertain the possibilty of all scenarios.

Good to get an opinion from someone with knowledge of the subject then.. what do you think of the assessment in the article i shared a couple posts back, DFWJC?

[DFWJC]

Good to get an opinion from someone with knowledge of the subject then.. what do you think of the assessment in the article i shared a couple posts back, DFWJC?
I think it's a pretty fair assessment in that they don't totally draw long term conclusions from a snap-shot event.
The article isn't completely out of line and your take on it seems to agree with that view.

BTW, my cousin knows Jason Box at OSU. Small world. Box get's plenty of grant money, but suppossedly is a pretty good guy. ;)

Then again, CIOG's Colgan gets big money to say what he said. He may be right, but just sayin....he connects all dots with the same conclusion already derived before the facts are in.

[JBond]

What the heck? I was just talking about this specific event and article. Why are you turning in into a political discussion and questioning me about money? I thought it was just a cool phenomenon that was captured by satellite.

In that case, please accept my deepest apologies. How the earth changes over time is fascinating to me also.

[iceberg]

Unprecedented has a very specific definition in this scenario. They based it off the last 30 years of satellite observation. In that time frame, this melt was unprecedented.

so you limit the timeframe of the event to a specific period where it's not happened before and then pull out "unprecedented" to bolster the emotional effect.

i can't do that. the world is much older than 30 years and to know what is precedented or not, you have to look at everything. not a timeslice that fits an agenda.

[AbeBeta]

Some can't separate the two. I think that's what he was saying. At least they have a hard time with it.

That's one of the biggest shames about this debate.

The other shame is that people think that "consensus" means that every single scientist has to agree on something and that the absence of that is somehow evidence in support of a "do nothing" approach.

The failures of the American educational system are highlighted by this "debate."

[iceberg]

That's one of the biggest shames about this debate.

The other shame is that people think that "consensus" means that every single scientist has to agree on something and that the absence of that is somehow evidence in support of a "do nothing" approach.

The failures of the American educational system are highlighted by this "debate."

yet if you have "evidence" we should do what?

i can't find a single person who thinks global warming is a crock who will follow it up and say even if so, we still should NOT do more to protect our environment.

every non-panicing person i've seen has agreed we can do more to help our environment but they just don't feel all the evidence is in to prove it and it's a dog and pony show anyway.

so tell me - who says we should "do nothing"?

[AbeBeta]

yet if you have "evidence" we should do what?

i can't find a single person who thinks global warming is a crock who will follow it up and say even if so, we still should NOT do more to protect our environment.

every non-panicing person i've seen has agreed we can do more to help our environment but they just don't feel all the evidence is in to prove it and it's a dog and pony show anyway.

so tell me - who says we should "do nothing"?

Iceberg, why don't you tell us what you personally are doing. I'd love to hear it.

[Vtwin]

problem with your point is that no one outside of maybe the Maritimes pronounces about that way.

I've heard all of my Ontario buddies say "aboot" hundred of times.

I can't even understand half the crap my Quebec buddies say.


The ice age was coming in the 70's. Now the earth is on the verge of catastrophic clmate change in the 10's.

Hope I'm still around tp see what is the next big scare is in the 50's.

[joseephuss]

so you limit the timeframe of the event to a specific period where it's not happened before and then pull out "unprecedented" to bolster the emotional effect.

i can't do that. the world is much older than 30 years and to know what is precedented or not, you have to look at everything. not a timeslice that fits an agenda.

What agenda? Did you read the article from the NASA web site? I didn't see an agenda in their article. I do think it was a poor choice of words to say "unprecedented", but I didn't see a lot of conclusions drawn in this article.

[AbeBeta]

The ice age was coming in the 70's. Now the earth is on the verge of catastrophic clmate change in the 10's.
.

The big difference here is that in the 70s that whole thing was generated by Time Magazine running with work done by one or two people. In fact, reviews of the literature at the time find that the majority of climate science papers at the time (62%) predicted WARMING rather than cooling. The cooling side was 10% and the no conclusion folks 28%

Today the % affirming climate change is estimated as over 95%

So what you are pointing to is media driven, not the actual science.

[iceberg]

What agenda? Did you read the article from the NASA web site? I didn't see an agenda in their article. I do think it was a poor choice of words to say "unprecedented", but I didn't see a lot of conclusions drawn in this article.

to me, when you timeslice something into a narrow field of view then turn around and say "unprecedinted" - agenda.

i don't care to read the rest anymore than i care to read articles iwth senationalism headlines.

[JBond]

What agenda? Did you read the article from the NASA web site? I didn't see an agenda in their article. I do think it was a poor choice of words to say "unprecedented", but I didn't see a lot of conclusions drawn in this article.


I'm not sure why NASA is even bothering with this stuff. They have been tasked with much more important things by our commander and chief. They are now in the relationship building business courting certain cultural and ethnic groups.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I've heard all of my Ontario buddies say "aboot" hundred of times.

I can't even understand half the crap my Quebec buddies say.


The ice age was coming in the 70's. Now the earth is on the verge of catastrophic clmate change in the 10's.

Hope I'm still around tp see what is the next big scare is in the 50's.

Quebec English can be different, that is for sure but that is because many are not native English speakers. There are a number of french words thrown in, such as I am going to the Depanneur.

Still in Canada, other than the Maritimes, we pretty much all sound the same, there aren't the same different accents like in the US, or England. Canada is unique in the English speaking world in that regard.

You say that you have heard "aboot", weird, I am 45 and not once have I ever heard someone say aboot except on TV.

[AbeBeta]

I'm not sure why NASA is even bothering with this stuff. They have been tasked with much more important things by our commander and chief. They are now in the relationship building business courting certain cultural and ethnic groups.

Ethnic groups? Must be courting the Greenland Innuit population

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I've never understood why some are so vehemently opposed to believing man is assisting in global warming. Maybe it is people who just hate science.

[JBond]

Ethnic groups? Must be courting the Greenland Innuit population

Without getting into the politics, I was refering to the new outreach program to certain middle eastern countries. That is all I have to say on the topic. Got to be PC!

A link if you are interested.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/nasa-official-walks-claim-muslim-outreach-foremost-mission/

[AbeBeta]

Without getting into the politics, I was refering to the new outreach program to certain middle eastern countries. That is all I have to say on the topic. Got to be PC!

A link if you are interested.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/nasa-official-walks-claim-muslim-outreach-foremost-mission/

See quotes above about your sources

[Denim Chicken]

"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us." MC

[AbeBeta]

"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us." MC

You know that movie was full of scientific inaccuracies and made up stuff, correct?

[Denim Chicken]

You know that movie was full of scientific inaccuracies and made up stuff, correct?

What movie? Jurrasic Park?

[JBond]

The big difference here is that in the 70s that whole thing was generated by Time Magazine running with work done by one or two people. In fact, reviews of the literature at the time find that the majority of climate science papers at the time (62%) predicted WARMING rather than cooling. The cooling side was 10% and the no conclusion folks 28%

Today the % affirming climate change is estimated as over 95%

So what you are pointing to is media driven, not the actual science.

I still believe the ball of fire in the sky has more to do with temps than my SUV.

Who is paying those affirming global warming? Who profits from it? I always follow the money.

What happened to the original base line temperature records? Somehow they disappeared and now we are using "adjusted" records. The whole thing is a crock.

Meanwhile I have had only half an inch of rain since May and everything is dying in Kansas, but that is anecdotal at best.:)

Maybe it will warm up enough like in the 1300's and we can buy our food from Iceland.

[The30YardSlant]

You know that movie was full of scientific inaccuracies and made up stuff, correct?

The quote is from the prologue to the novel "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. It isn't used in the movie, and of course a movie about cloning dinosaurs is going to stretch the boundaries of science.

[JBond]

The quote is from the prologue to the novel "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. It isn't used in the movie, and of course a movie about cloning dinosaurs is going to stretch the boundaries of science.


Have you read "State of Fear". I found the appendix interesting. Creighton died shortly after it was released.

[The30YardSlant]

I've never understood why some are so vehemently opposed to believing man is assisting in global warming. Maybe it is people who just hate science.

I love science, my life has been nothing but size for the better part of a decade now. Loving science and acknowledging bunk when you see it are not mutually exclusive.

"Global warming" as you and most know it is a political platform, not a scientific reality. The earth is not in a continual warming phase which if left untreated will ultimately endanger future generations. We are in the middle of a natural warming trend, one that has been occuring since before recorded human history. Eventually, due in part to known processes and in part to some science has no comprehension of yet, the earth will begin cooling again. Nothing we do is going to stop the natural cycle of heating and cooling that has been occuring for a longer timeframe than the average citizen can even comprehend. But hey, carbon credits gain political points. Go green...or something.

[Denim Chicken]

I love science, my life has been nothing but size for the better part of a decade now. Loving science and acknowledging bunk when you see it are not mutually exclusive.

"Global warming" as you and most know it is a political platform, not a scientific reality. The earth is not in a continual warming phase which if left untreated will ultimately endanger future generations. We are in the middle of a natural warming trend, one that has been occuring since before recorded human history. Eventually, due in part to known processes and in part to some science has no comprehension of yet, the earth will begin cooling again. Nothing we do is going to stop the natural cycle of heating and cooling that has been occuring for a longer timeframe than the average citizen can even comprehend. But hey, carbon credits gain political points. Go green...or something.

Agree, just another means to control us by fear.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Agree, just another means to control us by fear.

you mean like, no liquids on planes which only benefits those selling water after security?

[AbeBeta]

What movie? Jurrasic Park?

Same can be said about the book

[locked&loaded]

Just some trivia here...

I don't know for sure if actual surface temp increases are coming from humans, but there is slightly more CO2.

Please don't say most "real scientist" .
In fact the number that disagree outnumbers the ones that agree about 8 to 1. It's not even close. That smaller number is more vocal because if they are right, we really do have a problem in the near term (50-100 year window).

I'm a Geologist/Geophysicist. In my community the ratio is closer to 50-1 saying we do not know and most likely man is not the cause based on geologic history.

That is NOT saying that man for sure does not cause increases in temps, it just says that we don't know that they do and there is plenty of evidence that this warming is minor compared to 100s of other times in the past before man was even around.

All I can say is "follow, the money".
100s of millions in grant money is out there for people to say man did this. The money goes away if they say otherwise.

Also, Billions are at stake for new, green, companies and things like the Chicago Exchange.

Green, of course, really IS very good. But the witch hunt is out of line.

The people that pound their fist are almost always getting paid one way or the other to do so.
In the end though, it's a good idea to at least intertain the possibilty of all scenarios.

I guess most of my information comes from the book "plows,plauges and patroleum". Plus a climate change class I had.. plus i go to the number one undergraduate school in the nation for natural resources. I just hear about it alot.

also, I had been looking for this article I had read awhile back..here it is. take from it what you will.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1#.UBMbTrRfFQM

[jobberone]

you mean like, no liquids on planes which only benefits those selling water after security?

That's to keep flammable, explosive and corrosive liquids off planes. Certainly it gets exploited but that's not the reason you can't get many liquids on a plane.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

That's to keep flammable, explosive and corrosive liquids off planes. Certainly it gets exploited but that's not the reason you can't get many liquids on a plane.

except of course, we travelled with them for years without any real incident, it is the myth of security that TSA and CTSA (the Canadian version) feeds us.

[RoyTheHammer]

except of course, we travelled with them for years without any real incident, it is the myth of security that TSA and CTSA (the Canadian version) feeds us.

Times are changing man.. for example, nowadays when your wife rapes a bunch of children, people would expect you to report her.

Crazy, right?

:rolleyes:

[DFWJC]

I guess most of my information comes from the book "plows,plauges and patroleum". Plus a climate change class I had.. plus i go to the number one undergraduate school in the nation for natural resources. I just hear about it alot.

also, I had been looking for this article I had read awhile back..here it is. take from it what you will.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1#.UBMbTrRfFQM
I'm surpised it wasn't 100% seeing that asked "climate scientists" the question. lol

That USA Today article is pretty weak, but that's fine.

That's a pretty narrow field asked to a often very flimsy definition of a scientist....that basically gets paid to give them the answer they want to hear.

Again, I'm not saying they are wrong.

It's just the title maybe should have said 97% of a selected group climate scientists, but theat would be too long of atitle, I suppose....and would have less impact.

And of course, you know what your climate change class would tell you. By defintion the story would be totally one-sided or the school would not even get funding to have the class.

[vta]

I think the people of the world would do better to concern itself with the behavioral climate of themselves, rather than worrying about what the weather is doing. It won't matter much what it's doing if people continue treating each other like **** any way.

[jobberone]

except of course, we travelled with them for years without any real incident, it is the myth of security that TSA and CTSA (the Canadian version) feeds us.

Irrelevant. Today is much more dangerous and while it's a pain the rule is for safety not profit. We aren't having planes fall from the skies and there have been real threats. I don't necessarily agree with it all but we are about as safe as possible. I get on a plane I want to get away on my own power.