Relax - Greenland Isn't Melting

[BRUCE]

This is why we should be very careful when listening to Global Warming advice from the following people:

- Rob
- Al Gore

Have you watched the Gore movie?  Whether you believe him or not on the FUTURE trends, he shows a great deal of changes on the map.  You see lakes and rivers now gone.  You see the maps of greenland and antarctica shrinking.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/greenlands-glaciers-take-a-breather/

Dr Ian Howat, of The University of Washington quotes:

Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s, and many of the glaciers were smaller than they are now. This was a period of rapid glacier shrinkage world-wide, followed by at least partial re-expansion during a colder period from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. Of course, we don’t know very much about how the glacier dynamics changed then because we didn’t have satellites to observe it.

So, unless Al has had a satellite taking surveillance shots for us of Greenland from 1931, let's take his current 'evidence' with a cool glass of glacial melt water.

[youandme]

"Professor Slawek Tulaczyk, of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told the IoS that the glacier had dropped 100 feet this summer."

Hmm believe 10 quakes theories out of 2500 scientists proven research? You be the judge.

[BRUCE]

"Professor Slawek Tulaczyk, of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told the IoS that the glacier had dropped 100 feet this summer."

Hmm believe 10 quakes theories out of 2500 scientists proven research? You be the judge.

Many of those 2,500 scientists you mention have spoken out on the IPCC's report, stating that their contentions were left out or never asked for.  These are the ones that have had the gall to defy the 'beliefs' of the mob - the question is how many other scientists' opinions weren't recorded.  Does this not concern you?

[Deedee]

   Where are you getting from this op-ed piece that no glacial melting is taking place?

Also, it's misleading of you to selectively quote from this op-ed to suit your title thread. Anyone who actually reads it can see that the author was careful in the way he chose to state his opinion. It's hardly a dramatic revelation.

I believe this is how that quote from Dr Howat continues:

The problem arises in the possibility that, due to anthropogenic warming, warm phases will become longer and more severe, so that each time the glaciers go through a period of retreat like this, they won’t fully grow back and they will retreat farther the next time.

All the scientists were saying was that glaciers can melt and freeze quickly, and that we should proceed with caution when making long-term predictions.  Nowhere does it state that the glaciers are not in fact melting.

Btw... here is a definition of the word "anthropogenic" for those who tend to read threads and posts without  actually consulting or questioning the source.  Basically Dr. Howat is saying our abuse of the planet is causing longer warming periods, so the glaciers have less time to "recover."

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

Anthropogenic effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.
The term is often used in the context of environmental externalities in the form of chemical or biological wastes that are produced as by-products of otherwise purposeful human activities. For instance, it is widely believed that the production of Carbon Dioxide is the primary factor driving anthropogenic climate change.

[Camel Jockey]

You, sir, are being driven by right wing motive. Anything you deem to benefit your silly cause, you'll post.

This is almost as bad as your post about Polar Bears, in that you basically proved yourself wrong.

Have a good day, or good night.

[BRUCE]

  Where are you getting from this op-ed piece that no glacial melting is taking place?

Also, it's misleading of you to selectively quote from this op-ed to suit your title thread. Anyone who actually reads it can see that the author was careful in the way he chose to state his opinion. It's hardly a dramatic revelation.

I believe this is how that quote from Dr Howat continues:

The problem arises in the possibility that, due to anthropogenic warming, warm phases will become longer and more severe, so that each time the glaciers go through a period of retreat like this, they won’t fully grow back and they will retreat farther the next time.

All the scientists were saying was that glaciers can melt and freeze quickly, and that we should proceed with caution when making long-term predictions.  Nowhere does it state that the glaciers are not in fact melting.

Btw... here is a definition of the word "anthropogenic" for those who tend to read threads and posts without  actually consulting or questioning the source.  Basically Dr. Howat is saying our abuse of the planet is causing longer warming periods, so the glaciers have less time to "recover."

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

Anthropogenic effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.
The term is often used in the context of environmental externalities in the form of chemical or biological wastes that are produced as by-products of otherwise purposeful human activities. For instance, it is widely believed that the production of Carbon Dioxide is the primary factor driving anthropogenic climate change.

Actually, Deedee, the operative word in that quote from the good doctor is possibility.  That's not a statement of fact, that's something which he believes may happen.

And tell me this, if we can show that Greenland's glaciers were thinner in the 1930's and 1940's than they are now, how can you tell me that it is now melting away as in Gore's propaganda film?  How can you be sure Global Warming is to blame?

You mentioned that we should proceed with caution when making long-term predictions about the environment - very true - therefore we will no longer declare the debate is over on Global Warming, and posts like mine will not irritate you so much.

[BRUCE]

You, sir, are being driven by right wing motive. Anything you deem to benefit your silly cause, you'll post.

This is almost as bad as your post about Polar Bears, in that you basically proved yourself wrong.

Have a good day, or good night.

Uh huh, I guess it's easier to label me than actually debate me.  Actually going to start dealing with facts soon, are we?

[Deedee]

Lol Bruce, you needn't infuse my posts with emotions that aren't there.  I'm not in the least irritated about this stuff.

Your thread title is called - Relax: Greenland Isn't Melting - which I guess adds a little spicy flourish to the blogger's more pendantic - Greenland's Glaciers Take a Breather. You imply nothing is happening, the blogger says there's evidence that melting slowed down in '04. He makes no claim such as yours.

The author quotes a scientist as saying there is evidence that glaciers can melt and freeze relatively quickly so they can't really do any accurate number crunching of how glaciers will behave in the longterm. I guess that can also be interpreted as, glacier activity is volatile and can go either way. While "possibility" can be called the operative word, it seems quite clear that the scientist expresses concern that anthropogenic warming could have severe effects. Call me crazy, but his educated warning holds a little more water, in my opinion, than your personal assurance that we can "party all night long" because you personally are confident that global warming doesn't exist.

[BRUCE]

Lol Bruce, you needn't infuse my posts with emotions that aren't there.  I'm not in the least irritated about this stuff.

Your thread title is called - Relax: Greenland Isn't Melting - which I guess adds a little spicy flourish to the blogger's more pendantic - Greenland's Glaciers Take a Breather. You imply nothing is happening, the blogger says there's evidence that melting slowed down in '04. He makes no claim such as yours.

The author quotes a scientist as saying there is evidence that glaciers can melt and freeze relatively quickly so they can't really do any accurate number crunching of how glaciers will behave in the longterm. I guess that can also be interpreted as, glacier activity is volatile and can go either way. While "possibility" can be called the operative word, it seems quite clear that the scientist expresses concern that anthropogenic warming could have severe effects. Call me crazy, but his educated warning holds a little more water, in my opinion, than your personal assurance that we can "party all night long" because you personally are confident that global warming doesn't exist.

Instead of focusing on what you perceive to be my implications, why not deal instead with what I have actually said, Deedee?  I at no point said that Greenland's glaciers are resistant to change, in fact, I quoted a fact stating they had indeed changed since the 30's and 40's.

Try to not imagine things I have said and then use them during debate, it depreciates the effects your argument.  Notice our expert says that man-made Global Warming could possibly affect the glaciers of Greenland, but if this is the case, why are they now thicker than they were in the early 1900's?  Is this not something that is important to note, now that the world is apparently heating to hell?

[240 is Back]

Bruce,

Will GWB lose some political capital if it turns out global warming is real, and manmade?

[Hugo Chavez]

Bruce,

Will GWB lose some political capital if it turns out global warming is real, and manmade?

Does he have any to lose

[BRUCE]

Bruce,

Will GWB lose some political capital if it turns out global warming is real, and manmade?

Absolutely, Rob, but only if it's man-made, and that's still a huge 'if'.

[240 is Back]

Absolutely, Rob, but only if it's man-made, and that's still a huge 'if'.

Okay.  I agree - we don't know, and we may never know.

Do you feel that your support of Bush has in any way affected your ability to select info which best represents the scientific community?  I only ask because is sounds a little like you are cherry picking info outside of what the large UN group believes. 

[BRUCE]

Okay.  I agree - we don't know, and we may never know.

Do you feel that your support of Bush has in any way affected your ability to select info which best represents the scientific community?  I only ask because is sounds a little like you are cherry picking info outside of what the large UN group believes. 

No, you've put the horse before the cart there.  I let such matters resolve themselves, I am sceptical of Global Warming by nature, and therefore I support Bush, not the other way around.

I don't 'cherry pick' information either, Rob; I'm just hesitant to believe this debate is over, as you have claimed before here. 

[Deedee]

Instead of focusing on what you perceive to be my implications, why not deal instead with what I have actually said, Deedee?  I at no point said that Greenland's glaciers are resistant to change, in fact, I quoted a fact stating they had indeed changed since the 30's and 40's.

Try to not imagine things I have said and then use them during debate, it depreciates the effects your argument.  Notice our expert says that man-made Global Warming could possibly affect the glaciers of Greenland, but if this is the case, why are they now thicker than they were in the early 1900's?  Is this not something that is important to note, now that the world is apparently heating to hell?

I'll try not to imagine things.

You said Greenland isn't melting. Did you not? It's the title of your thread. The blogger simply claims Greenland isn't melting as fast as we feared. However, it is melting.

We don't exactly know what "our experts" have said, since what was written in the blog has been interpreted by a writer for the NY Times. I haven't actually read the Science article, since I don't have access. Do you?

As far as I read in the posted piece, there is only one glacier - Kangerdlugssuaq - that shows any thickening in the trunk. The scientist clearly says, in my opinion, that they were unable to ascertain exactly how the glaciers recovered following the early 30's warming period, but that we can't rely on nature's resiliency anymore because of anthopogenic warming. Perhaps I am as thick as Kangerdlugssuaq, but it seems clear that this man, revered in his field, is saying we need to be aware of the repercussions of our contribution to climate change, so I don't know why you are pointing to him to make your case.

From what I read, all we can glean from this NY times blog is that scientists are revisiting the way they determine long range projections. That is all. Am I mistaken in thinking that what you are getting from it is that we can cease to be concerned about climate change?

[Deedee]

I don't 'cherry pick' information either, Rob;

Actually, judging from some of your selective quoting, it seems you do.

[ToxicAvenger]

deedles..i'm not supposed to be posting here ..

but i sent this bruce character a vid about UFOs

and he deduced that i hated america.. 

dont waste your energy hon!

[Deedee]

deedles..i'm not supposed to be posting here ..

but i sent this bruce character a vid about UFOs

and he deduced that i hated america.. 

dont waste your energy hon!

I don't post for Bruce. His views seem very engrained toward the right.  I'm just giving people who may be impressionable, or distracted by the frequent urination contests going on around this board, or unaware that they shouldn't take the opinions of thread makers and posters at face value... some food for thought. 

[Hedgehog]

The nation Tuvalu will be gone in 30 years. A testament of our times.

I suggest all to google "Tuvalu".

-Hedge

[Mr. Intenseone]

You, sir, are being driven by right wing motive. Anything you deem to benefit your silly cause, you'll post.

This is almost as bad as your post about Polar Bears, in that you basically proved yourself wrong.

Have a good day, or good night.

But it's ok for you to be driven by left wing wack jobs?

[ieffinhatecardio]

Actually, judging from some of your selective quoting, it seems you do.

Of course he does. Is that even really debatable?

The double standard quotient runs very high with BRUCE.

[a_joker10]

I think you might be over stretching it a little.
The highest point in Tuvalu is 5m or 16.5ft above sea level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu
The IPCC report has indicated that the absolute worst case is between a 10" and 24" rise of ocean levels in 100 years.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[Hedgehog]

I think you might be over stretching it a little.
The highest point in Tuvalu is 5m or 16.5ft above sea level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu
The IPCC report has indicated that the absolute worst case is between a 10" and 24" rise of ocean levels in 100 years.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

I saw an article that pointed out that the overpopulation and pollution of the atoll may be the direct reason it will sink so fast, so I'll have to retract my statement, or rather put in a disclaimer: I'm not all that sure about Tuvalu...

Thanks for the headsup.

-Hedge

[ieffinhatecardio]

I think you might be over stretching it a little.
The highest point in Tuvalu is 5m or 16.5ft above sea level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu
The IPCC report has indicated that the absolute worst case is between a 10" and 24" rise of ocean levels in 100 years.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Other people that have used wikipedia as a reference have been criticized.

I'm not saying you're wrong just pointing out that others have been lambasted for using wikipedia.

[a_joker10]

Other people that have used wikipedia as a reference have been criticized.

I'm not saying you're wrong just pointing out that others have been lambasted for using wikipedia.

You can look up Tuvalu from the CIA source book or there own country website. The Geography doesn't change.

Wiki is an easy read for people that don't want to get too deep into an argument.

I reference wiki all the time, however if someone wants more info, I can provide that too. BTW I don't criticize the use of Wiki.
If I don't agree with Wiki then it is up to me to prove it wrong.