Greenland Ice Sheet Record Melt

waterdog Published:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • Sure, you can find someone who is considered and "expert" by someone, somewhere, to pretty much provide you with the answers that you want regardless of how preposterous it may be. If you tell them what not to find, then they will not waste time on looking for the truth, especially when you are paying them not to find it. It is the consensus of opinion of independent scientists that we need to pay attention to on this one. The fact is that there is no debate anymore amongst the scientific community about whether or not climate change is occurring, as there is no doubt that the trends are there. There seems to be some sort of informal debate in the media that apparently has been ginned up to sell papers, books, time on cable TV, score political points with the Luddites or whatever, but it is hardly objective and certainly not fair and balanced as it claims.

  • When you only cite the part of an article that supports your opinion, even when the overall article does not, that is cherry-picking. And by that technique, you can always support your opinion. That is what deniers do constantly, which makes it look like there is more support for denial than actually exists.

  • I wasn't "cherry picking" anything. The point of my post, which you obviously missed, is that you can find "expert" opinion to support whichever side of this debate you happen to be.

  • Once again you cherry-pick your quotes. The entire paragraph says: Goddard glaciologist Lora Koenig said that similar melting events occur about every 150 years, and this event is consistent with that schedule, citing the previous 1889 melt. But, she added, "if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome." In addition, NASA manager Wagner says: "...in recent years, studies have observed thinning sea ice and "dramatic" overall changes. He was clear, "We don’t want to lose sight of the fact that Greenland is losing a tremendous amount of ice overall." In addition, just last week, another unusual event occurred in the region: the calving of an iceberg twice the size of Manhattan from Greenland's Petermann Glacier. Over the past few months, separate studies have emerged that suggest humans are playing a "dominant role" in ocean warming, and that specific regions of the world, such as the U.S. East Coast, are increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise.

  • NASA’s claim that Greenland is experiencing “unprecedented” melting is nothing but a bunch of hot air, according to scientists who say the country's ice sheets melt with some regularity. A heat dome over the icy country melted a whopping 97 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet in mid-July, NASA said, calling it yet more evidence of the effect man is having on the planet. But the unusual-seeming event had nothing to do with hot air, according to glaciologists. It was actually to be expected. "Ice cores from Summit station [Greenland’s coldest and highest] 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," said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. Pretty much proves that you can find whatever you want to believe anywhere on the internet.

  • The relevant section of the previous article for those who don't want to read the whole thing: A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes: "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

  • Read this and weep: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

  • Read 'em amd weep. http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8

  • Chaz-please name some of your "scientists" along with their credentials and papers published in legit refereed journals.

  • "Nature" is unpredictable and it is becoming much more so as we heat up the planet. That is what the real consensus of the world's scientist have been trying to tell us with the reference to the trend of unsettled weather patterns causing extreme weather bouncing off of the rev limiter. This is but one of the classic examples occurring right now all over the world.

  • Note in the article where they add that the ice is RE-FREEZING faster than normally as well. Ooopsie. Nature - it's big, it's unpredictable and Al Gore doesn't control it.

  • Real scientists, LOTS of real scientists, have bene calling for an end to this mindless agenda-driven plunge over the cliff that the global warming hysterics are advocating. As was pointed out, Obama made it plain that his aim was to bankrupt coal plants, but who on the left will even admit that he said it? Certainly not waterdog. There's the rub. Raise as many points as you like, the greenies will avoid answering the question and brand you a loon. That's not argumentation. No matter how much is galls them, they've lost the ability to control the debate and to browbeat the skeptics and ultimately that's what's making them crazy. They actually have to defend their bad juju and they can't.

  • @waterdog:need; the only fail was expecting you and your flat earth, anti-science buddies to get anything out of this @waterdog:Resorting to name calling and personal attacks is typical of right wingers when they are out of ideas. So, are you out of ideas or shall we start over? I know fossil fuels are a limited commodity. I also know that if green energy becomes cost effective, people will buy it, me included.

  • Resorting to name calling and personal attacks is typical of right wingers when they are out of ideas. Whether you agree with me is not the point. Believing what you read on anti-science blogs instead of real science is what this about. Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't make it so. Also, do you think fossil fuels will last forever?

  • WD Just what I was expecting from a left wing commie lunatic. "You don't agree with me so you are stupid." It's the same argument you put up every time. I have no agenda. I own no oil stocks. I own no coal stocks. I do pay bills. President Obama stated that he was going to make fossil fuel energy (specifically coal) more expensive as opposed to making green energy cheaper. You and all the rest of the lemmings fell right in behind him. Find a way to make green energy competitive, and I'll be the first in line to buy it.

  • need; the only fail was expecting you and your flat earth, anti-science buddies to get anything out of this. I won't waste my time trying to convince thick-heads of what the ever increasing majority of Americans already know. You can hide in your shell, but in the end it will affect everyone, even deniers. I don't know what your agenda is (and really don't care), but I hope you think it is worth the ignorance you display.

  • Thanks for including the link. A paragraph or two below this image is an explanation of white vs. pink. Not as drastic as it looks, but concerning nonetheless.

  • WOW! All that in only 4 days...FAIL.

  • Just another indicator of unsettled weather patterns all around the globe.

  • For those that want data on global climate change, chew on this.