Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

iceberg

rock music matters
Messages
34,181
Reaction score
7,483
joseephuss;4634488 said:
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,577
Reaction score
12,283
CowboyMcCoy;4634352 said:
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

rock music matters
Messages
34,181
Reaction score
7,483
AbeBeta;4634719 said:
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,577
Reaction score
12,283
iceberg;4634745 said:
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

Safety third
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
11,240
CanadianCowboysFan;4634162 said:
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,922
Reaction score
6,820
iceberg;4634697 said:
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,577
Reaction score
12,283
Vtwin;4634835 said:
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

rock music matters
Messages
34,181
Reaction score
7,483
joseephuss;4634838 said:
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
3,488
joseephuss;4634838 said:
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

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,471
Reaction score
7,536
Vtwin;4634835 said:
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,577
Reaction score
12,283
JBond;4634901 said:
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

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,471
Reaction score
7,536
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.
 

Denim Chicken

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,382
Reaction score
23,999
"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

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,577
Reaction score
12,283
Denim Chicken;4635174 said:
"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?
 

JBond

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
3,488
AbeBeta;4634897 said:
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

Benched
Messages
24,287
Reaction score
0
AbeBeta;4635213 said:
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
3,488
The30YardSlant;4635231 said:
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.
 
Top