NASA Satellite Measurements Show Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt 411
NASA reports that measurements taken from orbiting satellites indicate the Greenland ice sheet underwent melting over a larger area than they've seen in 30 years of observations. On July 8, the satellites found evidence that about 40% of the ice sheet's surface had melted. Observations just four days later showed 97% of the surface had melted.
"This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland's weather since the end of May. 'Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,' said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate. Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12."
Photos also surfaced last week showing the Petermann Glacier in Greenland 'calving' — some very large chunks of it broke off and started to drift away.
I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Funny)
No, no....you DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!
2012 - 1889 is only 123 years. This is nearly 30 years too soon. This is dire!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no! An 18% fluctuation in a natural process! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently my closing SARCASM tag did not come through in my post. Sorry.
But it's late, I needed a break from the code, and just needed to let out a little humor.
Re: (Score:3)
One exclamation point is emphasis, two is coincidence, three is enemy action. Or sarcasm. One of those!!!
Re: (Score:2)
(I was mimicking...)
Re: (Score:3)
this is believed to happen every 150 years or so
"I love humans. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there." -- The Doctor
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate not stable over 100MYr (Score:2)
it could still be just a random once in a 100M yr event
The Earth's climate is known not to be stable on that sort of timescale, and in fact even on far shorter timescales (e.g. Ice Ages). Hence there is no practical way of knowing whether such an event is a one-off fluke or an indication of a change in the climate. The possibility is to hope the climate remains stable for the next 1,000+ years and then to see whether it occurs again...but the wait will be a long one! It's probably safe to say that once in a 100 MYr events are unlikely to occur twice in a mille
Re: (Score:3)
The Doctor (Score:2)
Any chance we can borrow his Tardis and go back and see what rhe Greenland ice sheet was like 500 years ago, 1000, 10000 etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw that, and thought, "have we drilled enough ice cores in enough places to know that the previous melts covered 97% of the ice cap?"
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Informative)
That, I'm pretty confident they have right. Big volcanos leave world-wide signatures in the ice, these can be cross-referenced to tree rings, varves (fucking spell-check, "varve" is a word, it's layers of mud at the bottom of lakes), sometimes even historical records.
(There, glaciology in three or fewer sentences :-)
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Informative)
"Ice rings", means you get 6 months of really-really cold, and 6 months of not so cold. It leaves some sort of mark in the ice. To build up a kilometer or three of ice, the net has to be ice growth.
In the past the earth has witnessed CO2 concentrations like what we have today, and the heat followed (strictly speaking, they happened roughly simultaneously in the past because the CO2 concentrations did not rise so quickly. It takes a really long time to heat the ocean. Our CO2 is ahead of the heat, and we will not reach equilibrium for hundreds of years). Over time, that heat caused ice caps to melt and/or slide into the ocean, raising sea levels quite a bit.
In the distant past, with very high CO2 concentrations, we had very high temperature increases and mass extinction. If we continue on our present trends ("business as usual", or BAU, in many discussions) we're expected to hit 1000ppm CO2 by 2100, which is well above what it took to melt ice caps (given time), and within perhaps a factor of two of the levels leading to the mass extinction. This is still unclear, the fossil record is old, the climate models have to work with a different configuration of continents and an allegedly cooler sun, and it's not clear exactly how much CO2 was needed to start the heat, versus how much resulted from liberated CH4 degrading to CO2 and stuff dying and rotting. Do we feel lucky?
The problem for us is that if we were preceding slowly to a somewhat-higher CO2 world (i.e., early Pliocene), we would get a wetter climate, which is not that bad (fresh water is good, though sea levels will be 25 meters higher). But we're not proceeding slowly; we're turning up the heat in a relatively large way. The oceans have a huge thermal mass, and though they absorb the bulk of the heat, their temperature rises more slowly than the land temperature. The result, "temporarily" (for a few centuries) is a slightly lower relative humidity, meaning, less rain, aka, more drought. Furthermore, the likely shrinking of the ice caps will proceed through accelerated sliding into the ocean, not melting in place, which will tend to cool the ocean somewhat. (All this is extremely hand-wavy, and says nothing about changes in ocean currents, which can have a very large regional effect.) See
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/12/pliocene-wetter-than-today.html [blogspot.com] for a more detailed discussion.
Unprecedented (Score:3, Interesting)
It's always interesting when an article provides precedence for something it labels unprecedented.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Anthony Watts denialist site: WattsUpWithThat.com
Sorry, thought it was better known around here. They sure get their thongs stuck in awkward places when Slashdot posts a pro-AGW story.
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
When all exceptional wheather events point in the same direction, it stops being "wheather" to be "climate".
If you were reporting news of the eastern front for a German newspaper after Stalingrad, you could well keep saying "sure, this battle was lost, but this other one was won. In any case, you can't call any particular battle to be an indication of how the war is going!". Except, of course, you can and should. OMany of these individual event are wheather, but the point that climatologists make is that they fall on a pattern: climate is changing, and the planet is becomming hotter. We also have a mechanism for that, the greenhouse effect, and human activities contribute to it significantly.
Frankly, that this be controversial is a huge mystery to me. But then people will believe the weirdest things if it helps them fit in a group, so...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>Remember: approximately the last 10 years have NOT been increasing significantly in temperature.
False. Most AGW-deniers claim that but they are wrong- there was heating over the past ten years and the past decade was the hottest in recorded history. It is also true that most AGW-proponents over-estimate the DEGREE of the heating in the past decade. Most believe an average of 5 Degrees Celcius per year, the actual figure is more like 0.5 C per annum.
That's still huge by climatologists standards though.
Re: (Score:3)
Most believe an average of 5 Degrees Celcius per year, the actual figure is more like 0.5 C per annum.
What the hell are you talking about? Most proponents believe an average of 5 degrees Celsius per year over the last decade? Yeah, a rise of 50 degrees C seems reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is still a huge overestimation. It's a little less than .2 C per decade.
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
>"Troll"??? This is EXACTLY the same argument used by AGW proponents, when they are confronted with the fact that Country X had a colder-than-normal winter last year: "That's not climate, it's weather."
No it's not, the two arguments aren't even superficially similar though one is designed to try and look as if it is the other one - it's a bad make-up job that you fell for hook-line-and-sinker.
AGW proponents (in particular scientists) look at global averages, and the expected outcomes of that. They expect weather in some areas to change because of average warming in ways that may not be alike- including that global warming can CAUSE some places to have unusually cold weather.
Let me try and make this simple. If you have a clay fire oven, it's well known that there are "cold spots" in the oven where the movement of warm air actually creates convection holes that are significantly colder than the rest of the oven (any Pizza chef will have seen that for himself), in some cases those spots will actually be colder than the ambient room temperature (since the convection actually sucks the hot air from them) by a small degree (this is an extreme case for a pizza oven but on the scale of a planet it's not even slightly extreme but expected).
Now before you light the fire - the temperature is relatively uniform in the oven, no hot or cold spots. But as the fire warms up the cold spots form. The increase in the average temperature of the air in the oven actually CAUSES some parts to drop in temperature.
Yes, this is a terrible analogy and the real stuff we're talking about is massively more complex but the point of the analogy is merely this: most "colder than average" reports actually PROVES an increase in average warming. They are evidence that AGW is happening, not that it isn't.
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Informative)
>And by the way: they have NOT "all" been pointing in the same direction. Here, for example, we've had close to record cool Springs and early Summers for the last two years. In fact most of last summer was fairly cool, as well.
Those actually DO point in the same direction. Any climatologist will tell you that an increase in the average temperature of the planet will cause some places to actually become colder (at least in the short term). This is not all that surprising, the increased temperature in most places causes changes in various weather patterns, in some cases it could cause polar cold fronts to move into areas they previously didn't often reach (pushed there by warmer air in regions they used to) - and so cool those places down (just one of many examples).
Warmer climate over-all means more rain, which in some areas (usually not the same ones where the warmth was) would mean more cloud coverage. You could see colder temperatures in some places because of more rain - and ultimately flooding - exactly because of the over-all increase.
That's not an argument in the debate either way. Climate is about the AVERAGE over many measurements in many places, and that average is indeed going up.
Re: (Score:3)
You won't find too many of the denialists agreeing with Kaku ( he's been roundly criticized ) on WUWT.
But, it's all good when he says something that aligns with their world view.
You are aware that this is a PREDICTION by Kaku, not an observation, right?
Despite the recent flare activity, this is one of the weakest solar cycles (so far) in many decades.
How many satellites and power grids have been knocked offline by solar activity?
By the way, we haven't yet hit the peak - probably still a year away , but it l
Re: (Score:3)
"You are aware that this is a PREDICTION by Kaku, not an observation, right?"
I think that goes without saying, since it was posted in 2009.
But here's the important part: that prediction appears to be true. We have been seeing ACTUAL unusual solar activity, just as he predicted. So... where's the beef?
"Despite the recent flare activity, this is one of the weakest solar cycles (so far) in many decades."
Nevertheless, this is the time of the peak of the 11-year cycle, and we ARE getting more activity than we have in recent years. It is not surprising that we are experiencing a heatwave.
"How many satellites and power grids have been knocked offline by solar activity?"
That's kind of a silly thing to ask. Regardless of whether it did damage, the recent flare was in t
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Insolation varies by about 0.15% between the minimum and maximum of the 11 year solar cycle.
Global warming did not show one bit of slowing down during the recent deepest and longest solar minimum seen in centuries.
So don't blame the sun, it makes you look stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the past 11 years haven't been centered around a maximum, but rather we just passed a minimum in 2008. Have you not even studied your own counter-"theory"?
Re: (Score:3)
I see, you're someone who heard something, and saw NONE of the numbers. The deltas we see on temperatures are an order of magnitude greater than the energy deltas from the sun. You've never even looked at the data, not even a little. Then you have the gall to form a "we don't know" type political opinion. It's insulting.
Re: (Score:3)
OK let me try again:
There is *no* correlation whatsoever between solar cycle and either weather or climate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm [skepticalscience.com]
If you say differently: Citation required.
Re: (Score:3)
The link you cite was a prediction from 2009. This graph of the last two solar cycles [wikipedia.org] shows that Solar Cycle 24 [wikipedia.org] is not nearly as strong as Cycle 23 (which peaked in 2000). So why didn't we have a similar or even greater melt off back in 2000?
From the Wikipedia page on Cycle 24:
Predictions
NASA predicts that solar cycle 24 will peak in early or mid 2013 with about 59 sunspots. This would make it the least active cycle in the past one hundred years.[4] The International Space Environment Service predicts the cycle to peak at 90 sunspots in May 2013.[5]
Prior to the minima between the end of Solar Cycle 23 and the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, there were essentially two competing theories about how strong Solar Cycle 24 would be. The two camps could be distinguished by those believing the Sun retained a long memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be active) or whether it had a short memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be quiet). Prior to 2006, the difference was very drastic with a minority set of researchers predicting "the smallest solar cycle in 100 years." [6] Another group of researchers, including those at NASA, were predicting that it "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago." [7]
The delayed onset of high latitude spots indicating the start of Solar Cycle 24 led the "active cycle" researchers to revise their predictions downward and the consensus by 2007 was split 5-4 in favor of a smaller cycle. [8] Consensus is now a small cycle as Solar Cycles are much more predictable 3 years after minima.
Also I have to say your comment, that it will be the Sun's fault, was predicted 6 years ago and here it is right on schedule.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The link you cite was a prediction from 2009.
A fact I mentioned myself in another comment. Your point is?
This graph of the last two solar cycles [wikipedia.org] shows that Solar Cycle 24 [wikipedia.org] is not nearly as strong as Cycle 23 (which peaked in 2000). So why didn't we have a similar or even greater melt off back in 2000?
Take a look at this graph from Wikipedia [wikimedia.org]. Notice that the latter half of the 20th Century has seen more sunspot activity (generally correlated with total solar irradiance) than the earlier 20th Century, or the latter half of the 19th.
If you put a pot of water on the burner of your stove, and turn the heat up to, say just hypothetically, medium-high, and let it sit there for a while, guess what happens? The pot will eventually begin to boil, beca
Re: (Score:3)
Fukushima could have been much worse than Chernobyl. They had 20 YEARS worth of spent fuel rods in "temporary" storage that was only designed to hold them until they could be transported elsewhere. Totall
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't doubt that humans have some effect on global warming but I'd be willing to bet that the Earth is a pretty decent self moderated stable system. Now it may kill us all in the process but in terms of life, I think that it can handle quite a bit more."
Yes and no. The famous quiz question/metaphor:
Question: If certain bacteria multiplies every minute and at the 60th minute the whole Petri dish is covered, at which minute was the dish half-empty?
Answer: At the 59th minute
Do not underestimate the RATE at
Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... (Score:5, Informative)
To have to delve into this again: Both Greenland and Iceland have icy areas and "green" areas; Iceland has a larger percent of "green" areas to be sure, but that doesn't stop it from having the largest glacier in Europe and getting lots of snow every winter, nor does it mean that there aren't even forests (albeit stubby [life.ku.dk]) in Greenland.
Iceland was named by Flóki Vilgerðarson, who witnessed drifting pack ice during his first winter in Barðaströnd in Vestfirðir (the West Fjörds), something unknown in southwestern Norway where he was from (to be fair, it's relatively rare in Iceland, too, but not nearly so rare as in southwestern Norway). Must have seemed crazy to him, to see the sea itself frozen.
Greenland was named (although not discovered), as mentioned, by Eiríkr (TH)órvaldsson (commonly known as Erik the Red). He landed in the southwest side of Greenland. Look at the southwest side of Greenland in Google Maps with the satellite layer on and tell me what you see. It's green. There are quite significant areas of non-glaciated land there, which is why that's where Greenland's population lives. Greenland, as a whole, was not "melted" then "frozen" and now "melting again" on the order of a thousand years; that area has been, in historic times, constantly ice free, while most of the island has, likewise, been constantly ice covered. There's been advance and retreat of glaciers, but nothing so dramatic as what people are talking about here.
As for "Grænland": first, think of what was known about Greenland before Eiríkr. It's said that on a very clear day you can see Greenland from certain parts of Vestfirðir, although I've never tried myself. It's about 300 kilometers. About 50% of days here during the summer in Reykjavík we can see details on Snæfell which I think is something like 150 kilometers away, so I wouldn't discount it. If you could see it, all you'd see was icy mountains. Then Gunnbjarnarsker (Grunnbjörn's Skerries) were discovered off the Greenland coast before Eiríkr, which Snæbjörn Galti tried (and horribly failed) to colonize. The east coast of Greenland and the straits are just too harsh. But, exiled from Iceland for three years for murder, Eiríkr sailed through icy seas, and along the frozen coasts of Greenland, and then discovered... well, green. And lots of it. So should it really be a surprise that he named it that? Yes, the saga says that he wanted to give it a good name to encourage colonists, but that wasn't unusual; to him, it compared similarly to Iceland. He wasn't calling a frozen rock "green" to trick people.
Interesting Caveat (Score:5, Insightful)
Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H
It's scary if you look at a trend of only 30 years. And then you compare it to data that's only around 120 years old and find out it's not so bad. I'm not saying the melting isn't bad, just seems to be presumptions to say "unprecedented" and alarmist to use such language given the number of data points.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Ice Age is ending. Or it could be all those cows passing gas.
No no, you are all wrong.
The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear error but I have no fearM
'Cause London is drowning and I,
I live by the river
Re: (Score:2)
No no, you are all wrong.
The ice age is coming
You are wrong.
We are currently in an Ice Age.
A Glacial Period is due to start soon.
(But, for now at least, we seem to be getting warmer instead of cooler.)
Re: (Score:2)
The ice age is coming
I'm pretty sure the latest Ice Age is already in theaters.
Atlantic Currents (Score:5, Informative)
With that much fresh water being added to the North Atlantic, we ought to be talking about the health of the Atlantic Ocean currents that are energized by the temperature difference between equator and polar regions, and the deep water exchange, which is driven by the difference in salinization. Most important of these currents is the Gulf Stream. It stopped several hundred years ago, over the course of a single lifetime, and caused the Little Ice Age in Europe. I've already heard some reports about the speed of the current slowing. An awful lot depends on those currents, and we've heard nary a peep about the implications.
Re:Atlantic Currents (Score:5, Informative)
and we've heard nary a peep about the implications.
I don't know why you haven't heard a peep, scientists have taken this quite seriously and have done some research on the topic. The difficulty, of course, is good historical data is hard to find, and frankly, good measurements of the entire ocean are not easy to make even now.
In any case, the latest scientific research [nature.com] suggests little cause for alarm.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, you know how tiny that volume of water is, comparatively?
If that kills something off, that thing was going to die the next time a fish shat in the water next to it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is it bad if Europe gets another Ice Age?
Re:Atlantic Currents (Score:4, Interesting)
Not just in Europe. In 1776, Alexander Hamilton was able to drag the guns of Fort Ticonderoga across the frozen Hudson River to New York. By 1830, the ice on the Hudson was too thin for that, and by 1850 or so, it had completely stopped freezing over.
Re:Atlantic Currents (Score:5, Interesting)
Well in the UK I think we're probably prepared. This last 7 years or so we've seen everything from massive increases in rain through to winters that have been about 20C below historical averages.
In each case it's been because the jetstream has moved out of it's normal position. In March we had drought conditions across most of the country, since then we've had record historical rainfall ever recorded for the month of July and so forth. In 2010 we had a January/February that was so bad we hadn't seen one like it for about 40 years, by November that year it happened again, so from once in 40 years, to twice in a year. Last winter was unusually mild, we barely even went below 0C which was in stark contrast to the -20C we'd seen the two winters previous. For reference, normal winters would see lows of -6C to -8C where I live.
Perhaps it's a natural cycle, perhaps it's because of man's actions, but either way the jetstream running over the UK has been acting quite differently to what we're used to since at least 2005. It could well be that effects on the gulfstream are already causing what you suggest.
On the upside, whilst the weather we've had with a lack of jetstream in it's normal position is not pleasant, it's certainly not going to be the end of civilisation at least - we've managed to cope the last few years, but it seems it means we don't get proper summers anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're mixing up events. The Krakatoa eruption took place after the end of the little ice age (1880's iirc), while the year without a summer, 1816, when frankenstein was written, took place after the eruption of another volcano. The little ice age lasted from late middle ages to mid 19th century, not just one year.
You said it first (Score:4, Insightful)
I love how neither the article, nor the summary mention global warming - heck, it's not even in the tags! - but in the first ten posts, half are already decrying the "AGW alarmists".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can post an whole article and summary on the decline of auto manufacturing leading by to the decline of Detroit. And I am pretty sure you're NOT going to be thinking Toyota. Just saying...
It doesn't take a moron to figure the point of a /. summary.
Re:You said it first (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither the summary nor the article don't really try to make any points, they just report on a specific fact. It's kinda telling that this fact immediately triggers a slew of apologetic posts. To take your example, it would be as if you wrote an article giving only the raw numbers about how Detroit fares today, and I would make a first post there along the lines of, "all you people trying to blame GM here are liars, it was Fiat all along".
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think the historical claims of global warming being behind the ice melt in Greenland have anything to do with the jump of comments?
In your Detroit scenario, it would be like after years of bombardment that GM destroyed Detroit, an article comes out and someone points to what they think is significant about Fiat's roles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I can post an whole article and summary on the decline of auto manufacturing leading by to the decline of Detroit. And I am pretty sure you're NOT going to be thinking Toyota. Just saying...
It doesn't take a moron to figure the point of a /. summary.
Actually, one of my cousins gets about 1000 mpg with his plug-in electric car, using cheap GHG-friendly hydroelectric power to charge it, at about 1/10th the price of gasoline here in Seattle.
We could always adapt. It's not that hard. He still drives to work. Just costs him less to do it.
It's "adapt OR die" not "adapt AND die".
Re: (Score:3)
If I eat oatmeal, cooked on my wood stove, for fuel calories, I get about 3000 mpg. Humans get about 600mpg if they could digest gasoline (think, vegetable or nut oil). Oats yield 5 calories of output for each 1 calorie of FF input (including fertilizer, harvest, processing). Cooking on wood stove avoids use of FF for cooking (significant, for a low-cal input like oats). Wood for wood stove comes from downed trees, all my cutting is with an electric chainsaw, splitting is with a hand-hydraulic splitter
Re: (Score:2)
(face-palm.)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that wasn't from Faux News, it's a lot easier to survive cold than it is heat (as tool users).
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see, Fox News, plus a 2-year-old prediction that has been pretty well blown away by subsequent events. I very much suggest that you treat Fox News as the digital equivalent of used bird-cage liner. Studies (well, one study) show(s) that watching it makes you ignorant: http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5 [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Truth be told I watch FNC because they have hotter chicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't read the articles. That's what Playboy is for.
Hmm... (Score:2)
Hottest in 30 years, since 1889....er 40% melted away, 97%...er wait. What does this really mean?
Oh, that 97% of the top layer of ice exposed to sun and warmth has melted. I am curious...how deep is this melt?
Oh...think that a warm year + drought over North America might, just might lead to a little melting. In fact, if this is the worst drought in 60 years, but only the worst melting in 30 years. Maybe it's not so bad?
LOL
Re: (Score:3)
It's misleading to those without good reading comprehension.
On July 8, the satellites found evidence that about 40% of the ice sheet's surface had melted. Observations just four days later showed 97% of the surface had melted.
See how it mentions "the ice sheet's surface". One consequence of that melting is that the ice surface becomes more granular which lowers the albedo encouraging more melting. http://www.desmogblog.com/black-day-july-greenland-ice-sheet [desmogblog.com]
Bright future for Greenland (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, remember, Greenland was originally settled during a warming period that allowed Britain to grow wine, and the Viking inhabitants only died off when it reverted to colder temperatures.
I recommend getting there by steamship. Maybe aboard the Titanic II?
I'm sure it's safe.
Re:Bright future for Greenland (Score:5, Funny)
You don't watch much SyFy do you? I guarantee a cheesy-looking, man-eating Yeti with a taste for swimsuit models (who will conveniently be waiting to be rescued by the rugged, misunderstood, loner biologist doing research in town) is slowing thawing out. We're just one summer break from a Greenland turning into BloodLand :(
Weather or climate? (Score:2)
So is this weather or climate? Because if it's weather isn't it just the equivalent to having an unusually warm winter in Eastern Europe or something? Did Greenland have an unusually warm winter or an unusually hot summer this year? That wasn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps someone at NASA is in the market for an oceanfront home? If global warming will reduce the market price for oceanfront property I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:3)
The analogy I've seen elsewhere is "loaded dice". If I roll the dice and it comes up 12, are they loaded? Can't say for sure. If I roll the dice and they don't come up 12 always, are they not loaded? How about if I roll the dice 360 times and get 100 twelves (instead of about 10)?
One likely climate-vs-weather cause I have seen proposed is a change in "Rossby Waves": http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/04/slowing-rossby-waves-leading-to-extreme.html [blogspot.com] This one thing would make weather "more extreme" simply
Re: (Score:2)
Weather. A specific atmospheric condition (a heat dome - never heard that one before) moving over a specific area over a specific time is weather.
Climate is trends and cycles in longer term averages of weather statistics and the probabilities of stuff happening.
eg the el nino / la nina cycle and how that relates to the probabilities of storm frequencies or intensities is climate - any actual storm is weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Coldest June since 1980 here and July hasn't been much better, someone up the page pointed out that it is unseasonably cold (worst since 1974) in Australia, talking to someone in northern Germany, summer finally arrived, listening to the news, one of the rainiest summers in the UK and so on. It's really hard at this point to claim whether this is a hot year or not though you are right that in Greenland's case and probably most or all the other cases it is weather.
As advertised! (Score:2)
From the Article (Score:4, Interesting)
"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," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
This is not time to talk about that (Score:5, Insightful)
During a time when the US is facing its most serious drought since the 1930's, its no time to talk about ice sheets melting or global warming, just like its no time to talk about gun control just after 70 people get shot in a theater. Its not the right time to talk about it! You are welcome to talk about global warming in the middle of the mild winter, or droughts in the rainy season (whenever that is), or shootings and gun control when all is peaceful. A public pandemic is no time to talk about health care, and forest fire season is no time to talk about children playing with matches! People with vested interests could have their vested interests changed. That's just not right.
Re: (Score:3)
Or we could have emotions demanding completely useless and ineffective solutions that do more harm in the long run then any good perceived or not.
The reason we wait until something has played down a bit is not because everyone will forget about it, but because the emotions have died down and you don't end up banning dyhydrogen monoxide simply because it is used in the process of making guns and ammunition and destroys millions of dollars of property each year.
Got to look at the data as a whole (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Got to look at the data as a whole (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right. It's always an incoherent attack on a particular observation, data point, or (ad hominem) scientist, while ignoring the great bulk of the evidence. With all of the corporate money being thrown around to sow confusion and doubt amongst the public, you'd think that the fossil carbon industry would at least attempt to construct a defensible, competitive climate model that takes account of this body of evidence and produces the result they (and thus conservatives generally) want. But, of course they don't. PR may not be any cheaper, but at least they can be confident of the results.
If this is going to be a bona fide scientific controversy, then both sides have to be doing some compelling, quality science. So far only one side has.
Greenland used to be... (Score:2, Interesting)
Greenland used to be farm land. It was called, "Green" land for a reason. But then about 600 years ago the planet cooled and Greenland farmers had to abandon their land. Harsh, and no, it wasn't because of humans causing climate change. Rather climate change has happened on a regular basis in cycles over the last several billion years. Now it is warming up and can be farms again.
The reality is that during periods of warming there was greater diversity. People need to stop focusing on climate change and focu
Re: (Score:3)
People need to stop focusing on climate change and focus instead on the real problems like toxic pollution and war. Global Warming is a just a distraction.
For example, consider desertification. As I understand, it destroys about as much farmland each year as would be lost to a roughly one meter rise in sea level, which is the towards the worst of the predictions for the end of the century.
AGW wouldn't help in other ways, but poor farming practices are a much bigger factor.
Re: (Score:3)
Greenland used to be farm land. It was called, "Green" land for a reason. But then about 600 years ago the planet cooled and Greenland farmers had to abandon their land.
Greenland's current ice sheet is over 100,000 years old. When people say "Greenland used to be green", they usually mean 450,000 to 900,000 years ago... not 600.
Good news, at least (Score:4, Funny)
"Unprecedented" (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Suggestion (Score:2)
The first thing that the Governments can do is abolish daylight saving - we need less daylight not more.
The Name "Greenland" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well over 95% of the ice currently on Greenland was there when it was named. If not sea levels would have been significantly higher then and they weren't. If Greenland were to melt completely it would cause about 20 feet of sea level rise, that's 1 foot per 5%.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has been observing the entire ice sheet for only 30 years. But the summit alone has been observed for a longer time, and this is the first time after 140 years, the summit has been observed to melt significantly.
Re:hottest in thirty years -must be global warming (Score:5, Informative)
According to TFA, they observed this via ice cores, not via some sort of manmade records or anything of that sort (excluding the 30 years of satellite data of course). At this point, they consider this an interesting but non-threatening event, with the proviso that if it happens again in the next year or two, then it will be much more concerning.
From TFA:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"... and this is the first time after 140 years, the summit has been observed to melt significantly."
Define "significantly". According to TFA, the summit was observed to be at or slightly above 0 degrees celsius for a few hours.
That's not enough to melt a decent snowbank in someone's yard "significantly". I doubt the summit had anything to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the wind condition and humidity dont you think?
Re: (Score:2)
"Depends on the wind condition and humidity dont you think?"
That's a fair statement, since ice and snow can sublimate directly into the atmosphere, if the air is dry. But on the other hand, it can do that at 10 below too.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
hasn't been seen for more than 140 years.
Stop and think about that for a moment. That means it happened previously, and nothing bad happened, we're all still here, and Florida isn't underwater yet.
Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a different conspiracy theory: Slashdot keeps posting articles guaranteed to rehash the (mostly uninformative) debate between people who support the IPCC conclusions and those who don't, because they hope to spawn a 500-comment shitfest in the comments, and maybe some social-media links, and thereby drive up pageviews.
Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but it keeps traffic up, which allows for increased advertising sales. ;-)
Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's enough that if I meet anyone out in the real world (not on Slashdot) I can take either side of the debate and crush them with my collection of facts. All I have to do is say, "The oceans have been rising clearly for the last five years" and it will drive a Republican crazy. Or for Democrats, "Al Gore flies a private jet." They go off in a ranty cloud of confusion.
So thanks to everyone who's attacked me over the years, I hate you but I love you.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but, ,but, he invented the Internet - how did he not control it?
Re: (Score:2)
Al and Kipper dressed up as strangers and met at a hotel for one hell of a romantic evening. Some say this is why Al comes across stiff as a board as something they were using snapped off and wasn't ever removed. Anyways, it was during one of these sessions that Al lost the remote control pad for the internet. He is no longer able to turn it up or down or off altogether. It is perpetually stuck at the mercy of the programming on it.
Re: (Score:2)
how about this? We give the global warming deniers a win. With one caveat: everyone has to go on public record whether they are firmly in the denial camp, or have publicly argued for inaction. Then, if at some point in the future, the evidence DOES rise to such a level as to completely erase the deniers legitimacy, we get to kill them all (and their children of course). are they willing to vote with their lives? they sure as hell appear to be willing to vote with poor peoples lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Adapt or die.
"Bye-bye, California. Hello, new West Coast. My West Coast. Costa Del Lex. Luthorville. Marina del Lex. Otisburg... Otisburg?"
You are the alarmist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, you seem awfully confident that almost every climate scientist is plain wrong about something. You must be one of those economic alarmists, who believes that reducing carbon emissions will cripple the economy -- the same shrill alarmism that was used against acid rain and CFCs (the ozone hole). In all three cases, the economic alarmists were wrong. Taxes on sulphur, CFC and carbon emissions had a negligible negative effect at most on various economies -- sometimes a net positive, because it spurred new economic activity.
But continue with your shrill alarmism that addressing climate change will somehow destroy the economy and usher in world communist government. Ye all seem so very confident about it, that you don't even have to learn what scientists and economists have to say on the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In all three cases, the economic alarmists were wrong.
Er, what do you mean by wrong? Obviously the world didn't end. But there was, for example, a mass exodus of the steelworking industry from the developed world of that time. And CFC replacements resulted in higher prices for most things having to do with refrigeration. The point being that there were drawbacks.
The problem here is that "addressing climate change" or in other words, reducing global generation of greenhouses and in particular, reducing the burning of fossil fuels is a far larger part of the
Taxes? (Score:3)
You don't know what you're talking about. They never taxed any of those things. They were either banned outright, emissions were limited by regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, if you're not single-handedly solving the problem, clearly, you are a hypocrite. Some problems are large enough that they require large-scale, COERCIVE, solutions. Like taxes, a military draft, limits on how stinky or inefficient your car can be.
Of course, if someone actually does live a fully low-carbon lifestyle, then they're some kinda hippy weirdo, and their experience surely cannot generalize to "normal" people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some problems are large enough that they require large-scale, COERCIVE, solutions. Like taxes, a military draft, limits on how stinky or inefficient your car can be.
And some problems aren't that big. No one has established that AGW requires large-scale, COERCIVE solutions. And frankly, it's pretty obvious that we're not going to get them until China, India, and other developing countries play ball.
Re:You are the alarmist. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, do you think that China should have the same per-capita emissions as the US? We'd all be dead.
Or maybe you think that each country should emit the same (since it's China's fault for being too large), and the US should have the same *total* emissions as Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The universe has existed for billions of years. We've recorded measurements on parts of it for a few hundred years tops. Therefore any and all data-series we have for anything whatsoever are junk and not representative since they cover such a minute fraction of the history.