Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenland Ice Sheet Melts At Record Rate In 2010

Comments Filter:
  • The new abortion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saint Stephen (19450) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @08:24PM (#34968728) Homepage Journal

    For those who don't remember the Abortion debate in the 80s , it was a lot like Gw. Both sides really intense. Finally you just learned not to bring it up. Both sides too strongly belief in their own POV, no possibility of rational debate. Sex, religion, politics - not possible to discuss in public

    • It's a little different from abortion, because everyone agrees on the physical processes involved. Same for gun control, Iraq and Afghanistan, and other hot-button issues. The arguments on climate involve fundamental disagreements about what's actually happening, not just whether certain things should happen or not. When new data can help clarify the "what's happening" issue, it's absurd to say we shouldn't bring it up because some people might get offended.

      • Responding to my own post to clarify: I should have said "... everyone agrees on the physical processes involved in pregnancy" above. As opposed to IOW, unless you believe that a fetus gains a soul at a certain point between conception and birth, there's broad agreement about what happens during those nine months; the argument is over what we should do about it. With climate change, you have a large group of people involved in the argument who deny that it's happening at all, and another large group wh

    • by IICV (652597) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:55AM (#34971258)

      This isn't anti-abortion vs pro-choice - this is "babies come from storks" vs "babies come from sex", and the story with the storks keeps on winning because people don't want to face the fact that if you have a lot of unprotected sex, you're going to end up with babies.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday January 22, 2011 @08:40PM (#34968870) Homepage Journal
    carbon gases, humans adding up to it, will make everything worse. its one thing to have to build huge dams and sets in order to save london, netherlands etc from sinking, and its another to have the sea levels rise higher than we can prevent with building dams or sets, due to exacerbating the situation through our pollution.

    i assure you, those who are opposing the measures will not be there, to spend money to save anything, when the time comes. its better to ignore them entirely now, rather than having to blame them and not being able to find them anywhere when the clock hits the hour.
  • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudsonNO@SPAMbarbara-hudson.com> on Saturday January 22, 2011 @08:40PM (#34968872) Journal

    All those Greenlanders will be chilling out at the beach in 50 years.

    Plus we won't have to worry about Florida land scams - it will ALL be swampland. And every homeowner will be underwater, so no need for a bail-out. Just attach huge inner tubes and let the hurricanes float your abode to a new state.

  • by gmhowell (26755) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Saturday January 22, 2011 @08:49PM (#34968934) Homepage Journal

    I wanted to come here and make some fake troll posts just for laughs. Sadly, the real trolls have beat me to the punch.

  • by cdn-programmer (468978) <terr@@@terralogic...net> on Saturday January 22, 2011 @10:42PM (#34969698)

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/uoc-cct010611.php [eurekalert.org]

    Yuppie! They've got the models to prove it:

    Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios

    The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, 'zero-emissions' scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

    The Northern Hemisphere fares better than the south in the computer simulations, with patterns of climate change reversing within the 1000-year time frame in places like Canada.

    That's a pretty good model.

    Who cares about 30 years of data when they can forecast out 1000 years!

    Looks to me that after we drown because of rising sea levels then the sea level will go back down. Darn - and I want some ocean front property. Maybe this will drive the price down. Maybe it will drive the price up. Maybe can we use the model on the stock market? I hate to admit that probably some of my tax money funded this.

    • by cdn-programmer (468978) <terr@@@terralogic...net> on Saturday January 22, 2011 @11:09PM (#34969876)

      http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SeaIce.HTM [uwgb.edu]

      Why Doesn't Anyone Mention the Record Growth of Sea Ice Around Antarctica?

      Typical of the commentaries on sea ice is this by Harold Ambler, published, of all places, in the Huffington Post, on January 3, 2009:

              P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007...

      So, to answer Ambler's final question:

              Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.

      The answer is simple. The Arctic decrease is statistically significant, and the Antarctic increase is not. This is Stats 101. Ambler is flat out wrong. Not all trends are equally statistically significant.

      What the last two (2) maps don't indicate is if warmer ocean temperatures increase precipitation inland.

      http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar [sciencebits.com]

      I suggest if anyone wants to dig into this check Sciencebits. More specifically look here:

      http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate [sciencebits.com]
      http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate#ShavivVeizer [sciencebits.com]

      Since we are still waiting for a very anemic solar cycle#24 to build up sunspots, I think perhaps we should wait till past 2015 because it seems the great solar science experiment in the sky is already underway.

        http://solarcycle24.com/sunspots.htm [solarcycle24.com]
      http://sc25.com/ [sc25.com]

  • Albedo change? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by khallow (566160) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:18AM (#34970900)
    From the article:

    "Melting in 2010 started exceptionally early at the end of April and ended quite late in mid- September," Tedesco said in a statement. "This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average."

    It so happens that this correlates with the volcano eruptions [wikipedia.org] in Iceland which were particularly intense in mid to late April. Looking at the map of the ashfall [wikipedia.org], it appears that the southern tip of Greenland got a heavy dose of ash and it's likely (IMHO, of course) that the rest of Greenland got at least a dusting. My take is that ash, despite its typically light color, absorbs more sunlight than ice and snow does. So is it a coincidence that the albedo of Greenland collectively changed in a way that absorbed more sunlight at the same time that increased melting was observed?

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...