Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

[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.

 

[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.

 

[YosemiteSam]

.. 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...-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.