Read about these guys who nearly got iced

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.



  1. orchidcup says:

    “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.”

    Be afraid. Be very afraid. FUD.

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Hey Orchi==let me demonstrate a little judicious rationalism by pointing out a very defective analytical pattern you exhibit. It is in fact a sort of “reverse conflation” you are also guilty of.

    To whit: “Be afraid. Be very afraid. FUD.”/// How do you get that “extreme/FUD” position out of a carefully considered article that is expressly conditioned upon future events and would be worrisome?

    Do you see what I mean/what you do?

    Nothing to be “AFRAID” of. Seems you bounce from one extreme to the other==either totally ignoring the issue as inconsequential, or totally ignoring the issue as extremist FUD.

    Where is the considered/reasonable/judicious/rational/middle ground for you? …. or do I presume too much?

    Let me ask you what Guyver and other science deniers on this forum have failed to answer: what happens to the millions/billions of tons of co2 that we all agree does get pumped into our atmosphere? Will it magically have no effect at all or just what is your studied scientific opinion? Or do you default to FUD by FUDDING yourself???

    You should find such behavior obnoxious. I agree that is more difficult to do with all the similarly situated scholars on this forum supporting your position.

    And why is the ocean level constantly rising? More FUD???==or is it worrisome?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    Silly Hoomans. Thinking the magic of baseless denial will work in science as it does in politics.

    • orchidcup says:

      I live in a tent and ride a bicycle to work and I eat vegetables from my garden and fruit from my fruit trees.

      I cook my food in a solar oven and air dry my clothes on a clothesline outdoors.

      I am a total environmentalist and I shoot cows that fart.

      I don’t breathe when I can help it and I keep a close eye on my carbon footprint meter.

      Don’t point your finger at me. I am doing the best I can under the circumstances.

      • NewformatSux says:

        Are you using a washing machine, bad bad bad.

        • orchidcup says:

          I left that part out hoping bobbo wouldn’t notice it, and you blew my cover.

          Okay. I have a solar-powered washing machine. Shoot me.

    • NewformatSux says:

      http://newsweekly.com.au/pics/Chart3_MeanSeaLevelSince1992.jpg

      Sea level is dropping, in 2006 and 2010. Still hasn’t reached the level of 2 years ago. Even if it does, there is no problem without acceleration. Even the wikipedia chart you links to shows a rate of 8 inches in hundred years.

      To answer your question, all that carbon warms the atmosphere, by about 1 degree. Then natural feedbacks would dampen this warming, making the overall level disappear within natural variation.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        NFS–there must be a special “term”/place in hell for those that do more than deny science but rather twist and manipulate and misstate science to achieve one particular result? Shill only captures the monetary aspect of that.

        1. Might crappy chart. Hard to read. Best as I can understand it, it shows a consistent stead increase in sea level. Yes–ups and downs, zigs and zags==yet the trend is OBVIOUS!! What’s that term for someone who denies what is OBVIOUS???? I know—LIEberTARD catches a lot of it, but those retards deal mostly in sociology and politics.

        2. Warms up the atmosphere by 1 degree and then stops huh? What mechanism causes the “stop?” How come greater % of co2 doesn’t simply keep increasing the temps as we see on other worlds all throughout the Universe? What makes the Earth Unique if your fantasy was true???

        3. Disappear??? My, my….goodness. I thought I was being sarcastic to call the deniers as those wishing MAGIC upon the world. But that is just what you argue.

        Stoopid Hooman would be an upgrade.

        • NewformatSux says:

          1)This trend you speak of is 8 inches in one century.

          2)Higher CO2 levels do not cause temperature to increase forever, on this planet or any other planet. There would be a new steady state once you balance watts in and watts out.

          3) What I mean by disappear is if total warming from CO2 is .4C and natural variation is +-1C.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            Well, NFS, at least you are wearing the mantel of being reasonable. Let’s parse once again:

            1)This trend you speak of is 8 inches in one century. /// So, in 300 years that is of how much concern to coastlines which are by definition at zero sea level? One foot above SL in 150 years? I’d call 8 inches per century a severe and rapid ocean rise that will disrupt all of human kind. What would you call it? Recall==sea level rise is just one of many effects. I use it as a net/net/net balance of all the contradictory evidence that retards like to point to.

            2)Higher CO2 levels do not cause temperature to increase forever, /// only retards say it goes on forever. Why do you say it goes on forever?

            on this planet or any other planet. There would be a new steady state once you balance watts in and watts out. /// Correct–and assuming your position==8 inches of ocean rise per century. Now, just to head you off: Ocean rise will not go on forever. You see==we will run out of ice. So typical of a good party just getting going, but no 7-11 nearby to restock. Hmm, did you think I thought the ice would melt forever????

            3) What I mean by disappear is if total warming from CO2 is .4C and natural variation is +-1C. /// Yeah, well my memory fails me==but I think the natural variation is fully accounted for in the two bit computer model and the increase is more like from 2-4 Degress Centigrade with a tipping point feed back cascade somewhere in the middle.

            C’mon guys==your facts and logic are severely lacking.

            Silly Hoomans.

      • kjb434 says:

        It’s obvious that Bobo only believes in science of prediction versus empirical realities.

        Geology has told us of the climate patterns for thousands of years, yet we are supposed to throw all that away for some two-bit computer model using bad data to predict the future?

        Bobo, you are the delusional one, but I’m happy to know that you go to bed at night in utter fear over something that made up to control the masses and develop a larger taxing structure to enslave the world’s population.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

          kjb434 rotating farther off his nut says:
          7/25/2012 at 9:59 am

          It’s obvious that Bobo only believes in science of prediction versus empirical realities. /// Hmmm…. what does that even mean? Yes, I believe in Science. What else is there? Never heard of Science of Prediction==what are you strawmanning that phrase to mean? Loading the atmosphere with co2 and it having no effect is just as predictive a statement as saying it will cause heating or cooling over time. Your statement is obfuscation posing as insight.

          Geology has told us of the climate patterns for thousands of years, /// Ha, ha. Wrong ology in common parlance. You talking ice cores and/or petrified tree rings, or the archeology of sedimentary levels?? But, definitions can be stretch and should not be a sticking point. As ology is science, I certainly agree science across many different ologies tend to agree with one another regarding co2 levels and temperatures and ocean levels and so forth. Everything connecting to and affecting everything else to varying degrees.

          yet we are supposed to throw all that away // No–its the very basis for AGW.

          for some two-bit computer model using bad data to predict the future? /// Your alternative is what?

          Bobo, you are the delusional one, but I’m happy to know that you go to bed at night in utter fear /// Again with the Orchi FUD bi-polar disorder?

          over something that made up to control the masses and develop a larger taxing structure to enslave the world’s population. /// Ha, ha. I smell a LIEberTARD. Say it ain’t so!

          • kjb434 says:

            Bobo,

            behold one of the best collections of scientific data regarding climate change

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/

            This blog has detailed the largest collection of environmental data on both sides of the issues.

          • The0ne says:

            Damn, you’re a psychopath in this thread! You’re more worked up in this thread than any other I’ve read, topping our discussion of the origin of man. You definitely need to take a vacation lol.

    • skh.pcola says:

      @bobbo the brainstem: “Let me ask you what Guyver and other science deniers on this forum have failed to answer: what happens to the millions/billions of tons of co2 that we all agree does get pumped into our atmosphere? Will it magically have no effect at all or just what is your studied scientific opinion? ”

      What happens to the millions/billions of tons of piss that we all agree that humans pump into the earth every year? Will it magically have no effect at all? By now, to sciencey blowhards like yourself, the oceans should be nothing but piss and pure water should be nothing but a dream.

  3. NewformatSux says:

    http://spiked-online.com/site/article/12664/

    I’ve seen people say that the Conservatives in England adopted global warming to boost nuclear power, but this is the first I’ve seen anyone say that that’s why Al Gore is doing it.

    • kjb434 says:

      Al Gore has to change some of his reasoning since a UK court identified 9 lies in “Inconvenient Truth” that must be explained before and school can show the movie.

  4. kjb434 says:

    bobo,

    If you understand science, you would understand that CO2 and other gases that are in the atmosphere doing contribute to the greenhouse effect at a 1:1 ratio. The curve plateaus to where there is a point that increasing CO2 has little measurable affect on the temperature.

    Also, geology has shown that the planet responds to the climbing of CO2 naturally and find ways to balance things out.

    People need to understand that to the planet earth, humans are an insignificant pest that only been here a short time and can eliminated on whim. We are not the problem nor should anyone be arrogant enough to think we can do anything to change the climate.

  5. NewformatSux says:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/news-report-nasa-sudden-massive-melt-in-greenland-my-comments-on-this-media-hype/

    The news headline, in particular, is an example of media hype. There was no “massive melt“. The term “massive” implies that the melt involved large masses of the Greenland icecap. They could have written “Sudden Extensive, Short-Term Surface Melting On the Greenland Icecap“, but instead chose to overstate what is a short-term weather event.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Right you are NFS. Headlines are used as teasers to draw the reader in to the body of the article to more correctly understand the subject.

      Why are you acting the stooge?

  6. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    kjb434 reasonably but errantly says:
    7/25/2012 at 7:50 am

    bobo,

    If you understand science, /// I don’t. Just a reader of the popular literature.

    you would understand that CO2 and other gases that are in the atmosphere doing contribute to the greenhouse effect at a 1:1 ratio. The curve plateaus to where there is a point that increasing CO2 has little measurable affect on the temperature. /// I don’t think that is true. Got a link?

    Also, geology has shown that the planet responds to the climbing of CO2 naturally and find ways to balance things out. /// Yes, the Mother Gaia hypothesis/observation is true to a point. But when this balancing effect is overpowered and the co2 sinks fill up, then we get what we have now==climate change. Not more white flowers to balance the solar input or plankton in the ocean bluming to absorb and sequester the co2==no, the air heats and the ocean turns acidic.

    People need to understand that to the planet earth, humans are an insignificant pest that only been here a short time and can eliminated on whim. /// You metaphorically apply a consciousness that is not evident beyone the poetic license. Humans may be significant or not as you will define–just as creating an environment toxic to all living things can be defined as significant or not. Thats how a meaningless universe rolls, or should I say, heats and cools?

    We are not the problem nor should anyone be arrogant enough to think we can do anything to change the climate. /// Thats a silly statement and enforces why I won’t take the time to find links to your earlier falsifiable/verifiable statements. You have no credibility.

    prove me wrong. Link to any support for any statement you have made. Surprise us all.

    • kjb434 says:

      behold one of the best collections of scientific data regarding climate change

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/

      This blog has detailed the largest collection of environmental data on both sides of the issues

      This blog has been going on for several years chronically every man-made climate change claim. It also thorough goes through the data when available.

      Of course, many climate change data is kept under lock and key because if they allowed peer review, you will see the flaws. The hockey stick was dealt a severe blow when Russian hackers infiltrated the East Anglia University databank and emails and publicly released the information.

      Records show climate scientists routinely omitting data that’ll refute their claims. The big uptick in the hockey stick came from skewed data. This has even been taken to court in the UK with the scientist backing down and admitting the hockey stick is wrong.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        google (hockey stick graph controversy) and find the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

        Just a right wing science denying urban legend that the hockey stick is not accurate.

        Silly hoomans. Misrepresenting science to disprove science. Too bad it ain’t politics, religion, or economics where you can believe whatever you want to heh boys?

        Science==always a dissenting minority and always wrong at some point but eventually the consensus forms, multi -disciplines support one another, and violet: the earth circles the Sun with fully 70% of non-scientific people still thinking its 6000 years old.

        That just how stupid Hoomans are. Take climate for instance.

        Ha, ha.

        • kjb434 says:

          bobo,

          historically, being on the consensus side in science is a losing proposition.

          Also, I find it funny that climate scientist never refute claims made against their data and models. They don’t even enter debates. The ones that do the refuting are stooges like yourself, politicians that need climate change to be real for power, and journalists.

          Also, I wouldn’t run to Wikipedia. I would suggest you actually read the Wikipedia article and it’s references then site the real source. Citing Wikipedia is for amateurs.

          Finally, you being a man of science, can you explain how Mars is experiencing the exact same warming patterns the earth is? Are the lunar rovers emitting CO2 ruining that planet? Mar’s experiences the same warming trends as Earth as documented by NASA’s Goddard Institute. Maybe our warming trends is due to that little fireball we call the sun. And there is more substantive data to support that theory than anything climate scientist are presenting.

          Amateurs like you can have the truth laid out right in front of you and never accept it. I’ll leave you in your delusional state.

          • The0ne says:

            Citing Google where it cites Wiki is just plain silly. It’s an indication that one doesn’t really know what their talking about but has instead rushed to Google more info for the sake of their own argument no matter the cost.

        • NewformatSux says:

          It’ll be interesting to see how the Mann vs Ball libel case goes. Mann sued Tim Ball for saying “Mann should be in the State Pen, not Penn State”. Instead of saying it is acceptable humor, Ball defended himself on the grounds it is a true statement!

  7. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    anthony watts debunked = 226,000 hits.

    Sure wish I liked candy.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      ipcc debunked – 203,000 hits.

      Lot’s of debunking going around.

    • skh.pcola says:

      bobbo jackass = 66,400,000 hits

      How’s that candy taste?

  8. orchidcup says:

    I am officially ending my assault on Mother Earth.

    I am deeply troubled and remorseful for my callous behavior toward the mother that spawned my being and nurtured my existence.

    Goodbye, cruel world.

    Bobbo helped me to see the light.

    I can see the light clearly now. I am moving towards the light.

    My relatives are speaking to me now. They are telling me to go back! Go back! You don’t want to be here! It is boring!

    Damn. That was close.

    • orchidcup says:

      My average electricity use this hot summer is 33 kWh per day at a cost of $4.00 per day.

      I do have a super-efficient mini-split A/C (24 SEER) and a washer and dryer and water heater and refrigerator and all the appliances one would expect to see in a modern home.

      I don’t know where the speaker gets the number $40 a day energy use for households that have washing machines.

      • orchidcup says:

        It is nice to know I have time to read more books because I have a washing machine.

        I am so Green my friends are envious.

  9. NewformatSux says:

    bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:
    7/25/2012 at 9:54 am
    Warms up the atmosphere by 1 degree and then stops huh? What mechanism causes the “stop?” How come greater % of co2 doesn’t simply keep increasing the temps as we see on other worlds all throughout the Universe? What makes the Earth Unique if your fantasy was true???

    bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:
    7/25/2012 at 10:25 am

    Well, NFS, at least you are wearing the mantel of being reasonable. Let’s parse once again:

    2)Higher CO2 levels do not cause temperature to increase forever, /// only retards say it goes on forever.

  10. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    kjb434 giving me a small chuckle until I realize he probably votes, says:
    7/25/2012 at 10:59 am

    bobo,

    historically, being on the consensus side in science is a losing proposition. /// Yeah, thats fun to roll over in one’s mind. At first, there is a consensus the earth is flat. So==basically I agree that “the first ideas” that were generally accepted have proven to be wrong. But were those first ideas those of science? You know–tested with a theory with opposing views welcomed to present their evidence? Did “SCIENCE” ever generally agree the earth was flat? I’m not a science historian (wifey has her PHD in that subject, but not me). ……. yes, science did exist back when the earth was flat. Individuals and schools using observation and theory/math. Very much the minority in a general society that accepted the word of the bible or continuing superstitions.

    ….. OK…. thru rolling the rhetorical over in my mind. …. “science” has been the mainstay in analysis only for the past 300 years or so. The consensus that existed pre science were not of science. Pretty easy to see.

    Also, I find it funny that climate scientist never refute claims made against their data and models. They don’t even enter debates. /// “Never?” More of your absolutist nonsense. What are the annual IPCC reports that are issued except responses to criticism? Lots of massaging of the model has gone on in response to criticism. Revealing stupidity to say otherwise.

    The ones that do the refuting are stooges like yourself, politicians that need climate change to be real for power, and journalists. /// Discussions of power and tax rememdies are not discussions about the Science. A common conflation of issues. Even Orchi has promised to stop doing that. You should too.

    Also, I wouldn’t run to Wikipedia. I would suggest you actually read the Wikipedia article and it’s references then site the real source. Citing Wikipedia is for amateurs. /// Blowhards without their own sources denigrate the Mighty Wiki. Wiki–good to provide “some” objectivity. Certainly stands up against no links at all such as yourself.

    Finally, you being a man of science, can you explain how Mars is experiencing the exact same warming patterns the earth is? /// Coincidence? Exact same = sounds more like the product of ignorance. Mars has a very thin atmosphere with no water vapor. Not the same thing at all. Very stupid statement.

    Are the lunar rovers emitting CO2 ruining that planet? // No.

    Mar’s experiences the same warming trends as Earth as documented by NASA’s Goddard Institute. /// Link?==and I’ll bet $ to a**holes the link itself will say there is only an analogy on 1 or 2 points and complete differences on 50 points negating the coincidences. Prove me wrong.

    Maybe our warming trends is due to that little fireball we call the sun. And there is more substantive data to support that theory than anything climate scientist are presenting. /// Not on your bald assertion is that true. All kinds of solar and orbital patterns are in the model. You actually don’t know what you are talking about at all. NAME one trend that is not included in the model: ……. chirp …… chirp …… chirp.

    Knuckle dragging science denying talking points with no links is all you’ve got.

    Sad really.

    Amateurs like you can have the truth laid out right in front of you and never accept it. I’ll leave you in your delusional state.
    Reply

  11. The0ne says:

    Honestly I really don’t understand why so many people would disregard this fact or outright not even bother believing it in the first place. That is just too cynical in my opinion.

    The melting is happening, it’s been happening for years. How this affects us and the ocean ranges from rising sea levels to the change in currents thus the change in ocean environments, which is imo more dangerous than anyone on this planet has ever realized. If the later happens, and it will imo, we won’t have a solution and will not have a solution for many years. And even then it’ll take decades for changes to take effect.

    Please stop living in this “…the world was created 3000 years ago…” crap and wake up. For the sake of humanity be reasonable, that’s all I can hope for.

    • The0ne says:

      Ah nevermind, after going back to read the comments it has become clear why some people can’t get over “facts.” I use the term correctly without realizing that there are cynical people out there. Cast one doubt to a fact and they become viral to the point of denying everything. I assume suggesting a class in Quantum anything would be irrelevant here as well because it is already a lie in their head to begin with.

      Science does indeed have strong opposition, strong indeed :o

  12. NewformatSux says:

    http://summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

    I suppose they did a good job of prediction, and sited themselves on the 3% that survived?

  13. President Amabo (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

    Propose a “solution” that results in greater urban sprawl and more Americans driving 4x4s.

    If you can’t do that, you’re wasting time discussing something irrelevant to anything important.

  14. NewformatSux says:

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    Published in 1922.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Whats your point?

      • kjb434 says:

        That all this is cyclical.

        This melting of glaciers in Greenland and the rest of the world has happened (several times) even before the industrial revolution.

        What caused it then? If current theories are focusing on man-made CO2 and our industrial developments, how do these theories explain the previous glacial thaws?

        The snow cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is often shown as an example of the impact of man, yet there are photographs and document of it having less and more snow coverage in modern history.

        These simple realizations that destroy the theories being put for today for the climate change can’t handle these realities.