Greenland update for 2010: record melting and a massive calving event

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:31 PM GMT on March 04, 2011

Share this Blog
6
+

No humans were present on the morning of August 4, 2010, in a remote fjord in Northwest Greenland, when the air vibrated with a thunderous crack as one of the largest icebergs in world history calved from the Petermann Glacier, the island's second largest ocean-terminating glacier. Where the glacier meets the sea, a 43 mile-long tongue of floating ice existed at the beginning of 2010. On August 4 2010, a quarter of this 43 mile-long tongue of floating ice fractured off, spawning a 100 square mile ice island four times the size of Manhattan, with a thickness half that of the Empire State building. According to Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware's College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, the freshwater stored in this ice island could have kept the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years, or kept all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days. There was speculation that the ice island could find its way into the open Atlantic Ocean in two years, and potentially pose a threat to oil platforms and ships. However, as the ice island made its turn to get from the narrow Petermann Fjord to enter Nares Strait between Greenland and Canada, the mighty iceberg split into thousands of small icebergs that will not pose an unusual threat to shipping when they emerge into the Atlantic.


Figure 1. The 100 square-mile ice island that broke off the Petermann Glacier heads out of the Petermann Fjord in this image taken by NASA's Aqua satellite on August 21, 2010. Image credit: NASA. I've constructed a 7-frame satellite animation available here that shows the calving and break-up of the Petermann Glacier ice island. The animation begins on August 5, 2010, and ends on September 21, with images spaced about 8 days apart. The images were taken by NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites.

Petermann Glacier spawned smaller ice islands in 2001 (34 square miles) and in 2008 (10 square miles). In 2005, the Ayles Ice Shelf, about 60 miles to the west of Petermann Glacier, disintegrated and became a 34 square-mile ice island. The August 2010 Petermann Glacier calving event created the largest iceberg observed in the Arctic since 1962, when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf on the north coast of Canada's Ellesmere Island calved off a massive 230 square mile chunk. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf also calved off a huge 21 square mile ice island a few days after the August 2010 Petermann Glacier calving event. According to an article in livescience.com, "Driftwood and narwhal remains found along the Ellesmere coast have radiocarbon dates from roughly 3,000 to 6,800 years ago, implying that the ice has been intact since those remains were deposited." All of the these calving events are evidence that the ice sheets in the Arctic are responding as one would expect to significantly warmer temperatures.

Warmer ocean temperatures cause significant melting of Greenland's glaciers
At a talk last December at the world's largest conference on climate change, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, glacier expert Eric Rignot of UC-Irvine implicated ocean warming as a key reason for the calving of the Petermann Glacier's ice island. The ocean waters near the glacier have warmed by 1 - 2°C over the past three years, he said, and all of the periphery of Greenland has seen ocean heat increases in recent years, with the result that 20 - 80% of all the mass lost by Greenland's glaciers in recent years could be attributed to melting of the glaciers by warmer waters attacking them from beneath. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, and far warmer than the previous record of 1.5°C above average set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s. A study earlier this year published in the journal Science (Spielhagen et al., 2011) found that ocean temperatures on the east side of Greenland are now at their warmest levels in at least 2,000 years. The researchers studied a sediment core containing fossil remains of planktic foraminifers, which vary as a function of water temperature. The study noted that not only have the waters flowing northward on the east side of Greenland warmed significantly, the volume of water flowing north has also increased, resulting in a large transport of heat into the Arctic. "Such an increased heat input has far-reaching consequences," they wrote.


Figure 2. Departure of sea surface temperature from average for 2010 from the NOAA Daily Optimum Interpolation SST Anomaly data set for October 2010. Areas colored red are warmer than the 1971-2000 average, areas colored blue are cooler than that average. A large region of record warm water temperatures extended along the west coast of Greenland, leading to record warm air temperatures and record melting along the western portion of Greenland in 2010. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, surpassing the previous record of 1.5°C set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s. Image credit: NOAA Visualization Lab.

Record warmth and melting in Greenland during 2010
Greenland's climate in 2010 was marked by record-setting high air temperatures, the greatest ice loss by melting since accurate records began in 1958, and the greatest mass loss of ocean-terminating glaciers on record. That was the conclusion of the 2010 Arctic Report Card, a collaborative effort between NOAA and European Arctic experts that comes out each year. Was 2010 the warmest year in Greenland's history? That is difficult to judge. We know it was also very warm in the late 1920s and 1930s in Greenland, but we only have two stations, Godtahab Nuuk and Angmagssalik, with weather records that go back that far (Figure 3.) Godtahab Nuuk set a record high in 2010, but temperatures at Angmagssalik in 2010 were similar to what was observed during several years in the 1920s and 1930s. Marco Tedesco of the City College of New York's Cryosphere Processes Laboratory remarked that last year's record warmth and melting in Greenland began when an unusually early spring warm spell reduced and "aged" the snow on the surface of the ice sheet, so that the snow became less reflective, allowing it to absorb more heat from the sun. This accelerated snow melt even further, exposing the bare ice, which is less reflective than snow and absorbs more heat. This feedback loop extended Greenland's record melting season well into the fall.


Figure 3. Historic temperatures in Greenland for the six stations with at least 50 years of data, as archived by NASA. Three of the six stations set record highs in 2010. However, only two of the six stations (Godtahab Nuuk and Angmagssalik) have data going back beyond the 1930s, which was a period of warmth in Greenland similar to the warmth of the current decade. Godtahab Nuuk set a record high in 2010, but 2003 still ranks as Angmagssalik's hottest year on record.


Figure 4. The 2010 summer melt season was lasted more than 40 days longer (purple colors) than the mean melt season from 1979 - 2007. Image credit: Arctic Report Card.

Why Greenland matters: sea level rise
The major concern with a warming climate in Greenland is melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which currently contributes about 25% of the observed 3 mm/year (1.2 inches per decade) global rise in sea level. Higher sea levels mean increased storm surge inundation, coastal erosion, loss of low-lying land areas, and salt water contamination of underground drinking water supplies. Greenland ice mass loss is accelerating over the long term, according to independent estimates using three different techniques (Figure 5), with more mass being lost each year than the previous year. According to Rignot et al., 2011, ice mass loss is also accelerating in Antarctica, and "the magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level rise in the 21st century." As I discussed in a 2009 blog post, How much will global sea level rise this century?, the IPCC in 2007 estimated that global sea level would rise 0.6 - 1.9 feet by 2100, but several studies since then predict a higher range of 1.6 - 6.6 feet.

During the warm period 125,000 years ago, before the most recent ice age, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted. This melting plus the melting of other smaller Arctic ice fields is thought to have caused 7.2 - 11.2 feet (2.2 - 3.4 meters) of the 13 - 20 foot (4 - 6 meter) sea level rise observed during that period. Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3°C by 2100, to levels similar to 125,000 years ago. If this level of warming occurs, we can expect sea levels to rise 13 - 20 feet several centuries from now. There's enough water locked away in the ice sheet to raise sea level to rise 23 feet (7 meters), should the entire Greenland ice sheet melt.


Figure 5. Loss of mass from Greenland's ice sheet in gigatons per year from 1992 through 2009, as computed from satellite gravity measurements from the GRACE satellites (red line) and from a mass balance method. The mass balance method computes the amount of snow on the surface, the amount of ice mass lost to wind and melt, and the amount of ice lost computed from glacier velocity and ice thickness. Adding together these terms gives the total amount of ice lost or gained over the ice sheet. The acceleration is given in gigatons per year squared. Another paper by Zwally et al. (2011) used a third method, laser satellite altimetry, to determine Greenland mass loss. Between 2003 to 2007, the ice sheet lost 171 gigatons of mass per year. Between 1992 to 2002, Greenland was only losing only 7 gigatons per year. Image credit: Rignot et al., 2011, Geophysical Research Letters.

References
Rignot, E., et al., 2011: Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, in press, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583.

Spielhagen, et al., 2011, Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water, Science 28 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6016 pp. 450-453 DOI: 10.1126/science.1197397

Zwally, J., et al., 2011, Greenland ice sheet mass balance: distribution of increased mass loss with climate warming; 2003 - 07 versus 19922 - 2002, Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 57, No. 201, 2011.

Wunderground's climate change section has a Greenland web page with detailed information and references.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 139 - 89

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

Quoting NRAamy:
"It's getting hot in here..."

Original quote
Nelly



so take off all your clothes?.... uhhh no, I'm a little more civilized than that.

lol :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
"It's getting hot in here..."

Original quote
Nelly

I can't belive it's been 9 years since that came out.I feel so...so old!.Nooooo.40 isn't old is it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
I see that, sadly and predictably, the jesters of denialism are back at it again this afternoon. Due to a complete lack of ability to find any credible, peer-reviewed science that refutes the basic tenets of global warming--that the planet is warming rapidly, that that warming is from quickly rising concentrations of CO2, that that CO2 is primarily from man's activities--they're resorting once again to posting the same lame anti-environment jokes, the same many-times-debunked contrarian standards, the same boring anti-science blather, the same churlish and disrespectful comments about the blog's owner/author, the same silly everything. Broken records. Broken records. Broken records. Broken records...

Sigh...

I suppose their whistling past the graveyard is a standard human response when faced with things they don't understand, or when confronted by things that scare them. But while false bravado isn't so great as a long-term coping strategy, I suppose whatever gets one through this day is fine--so long as the one showing that phony bravery and willful ignorance isn't an elected official making decisions that affect all of us--including those of us who tend to, you know, believe the science.


Its posts like that that get peoples hackles up. Do you say I am in denial? .. you have seen many of my posts and questions.

If I ask a question of you.. you either answer it if you can.. and if it doesn't fit your theory, you skate around it.

BUT the three of you have a tendency of Criticize, Attack, $ Ridicule if their references are not from one of your "approved" "Peer reviewed" sources.

Maybe you should cut a little more slack and listen instead of attacking?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
TORNADO WARNING
MOC019-027-139-042215-
/O.NEW.KLSX.TO.W.0012.110304T2134Z-110304T2215Z/

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ST LOUIS MO
334 PM CST FRI MAR 4 2011

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN ST LOUIS HAS ISSUED A

* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
SOUTHEASTERN BOONE COUNTY IN CENTRAL MISSOURI...
CENTRAL CALLAWAY COUNTY IN CENTRAL MISSOURI...
MONTGOMERY COUNTY IN EAST CENTRAL MISSOURI...

* UNTIL 415 PM CST

* AT 333 PM CST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A
SEVERE SQUALL LINE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING BRIEF RAIN-WRAPPED
TORNADOES IN ADDITION TO WIDESPREAD STRAIGHT LINE WIND DAMAGE. THIS
DANGEROUS STORM WAS LOCATED 7 MILES NORTHEAST OF ASHLAND...AND
MOVING EAST AT 45 MPH.

* LOCATIONS IMPACTED INCLUDE...
FULTON...MONTGOMERY CITY...WILLIAMSBURG...SHAMROCK...MINEOLA...NEW
FLORENCE...BUELL...BELLFLOWER...CARRINGTON...KINGD OM CITY...
DANVILLE AND HIGH HILL.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

TAKE COVER NOW. MOVE TO AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF A
STURDY BUILDING. AVOID WINDOWS. IF IN A MOBILE HOME...A VEHICLE OR
OUTDOORS...MOVE TO THE CLOSEST SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER AND PROTECT
YOURSELF FROM FLYING DEBRIS.

&&

LAT...LON 3907 9136 3885 9131 3885 9142 3882 9142
3873 9223 3891 9227
TIME...MOT...LOC 2135Z 259DEG 41KT 3884 9213

$$

CARNEY
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"It's getting hot in here..."

Original quote
Nelly

Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting Cochise000:


Sometimes "stupid" can be amusing, though. I believe his post was hyperbolic satire. It's close to the truth about what goes on here. There are several on this blog who preach to each other in their own little world leading kum ba ya choruses against non-existent "global warming." I'm certain they don't practice what they preach, otherwise they'd be ditching their a/c systems and riding bicycles.


Oh don't get me wrong... I don't like the attitude of some on this blog when it comes to the "shove it down their throat" way of presenting information. JF is one of those... but that particular post was just plain stupid.

If your going to refute.. refute.. if your going to argue.. argue.

If your going to personally attack someone... go away. This is not the place.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


The problem with exclusively using quotes to support your scientific position is they are so vague as to invariably be applied to multiple instances in any detailed and complicated situation.

They are narrative observations to be applied to similar circumstance.

The quote is not really science itself, but a narrative of a situation that arose in scientific pursuit.

So again non sequitur. Bad argument.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.

But it was a good quote. Reason is absolute and quite venerable in its use in scientific circles.
Where did you see me supporting a scientific conclusion with a quote? I support my conclusions with references to peer-reviewed journals.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I see that, sadly and predictably, the jesters of denialism are back at it again this afternoon. Due to a complete lack of ability to find any credible, peer-reviewed science that refutes the basic tenets of global warming--that the planet is warming rapidly, that that warming is from quickly rising concentrations of CO2, that that CO2 is primarily from man's activities--they're resorting once again to posting the same lame anti-environment jokes, the same many-times-debunked contrarian standards, the same boring anti-science blather, the same churlish and disrespectful comments about the blog's owner/author, the same silly everything. Broken records. Broken records. Broken records. Broken records...

Sigh...

I suppose their whistling past the graveyard is a standard human response when faced with things they don't understand, or when confronted by things that scare them. But while false bravado isn't so great as a long-term coping strategy, I suppose whatever gets one through this day is fine--so long as the one showing that phony bravery and willful ignorance isn't an elected official making decisions that affect all of us--including those of us who tend to, you know, believe the science.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13470
Quoting NRAamy:
Starving In The Cold

Updated-Original post 2-24-2008

Recently Rosa Compagnucci along with several other Argentine scientist came out in opposition to the alarmist view of anthropological global warming as promoted by the IPCC. Who is Rosa Compagnucci and why is this important? She is the leading researcher at CONICET and a professor in the Department of Atmosphere Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires, as well as a specialist on the "El Niño" phenomenon. Dr. Compagnucci was also a member and author of the IPCC Working Group II on Latin America.

The fact that Dr Compagnucci now disagrees with the IPCC’s conclusions is not unique, a number of scientist involved with the IPCC have been critical of the agency. What caught my attention was a statement she made while explaining her reasons.


With all the emphasis on preparing for global warming, she warned, this could leave man unprepared to deal with the possibility of a new ice age. She noted that South America's Southern Cone just went through a brutal, record-breaking winter, which could be repeated in North America. These concerns were expressed this past December 2nd, prior to the onset of this current brutal winter in much of the Northern Hemisphere.

It is interesting to note that a climate scientist unfettered by the need to defend a political position can make such a prophetic observation based solely on her judgment and intuition of current conditions. As regards to a coming ice age she did explain that this could be hundreds of years in the future, but she did expect a downward temperature swing by 2012.

She is not alone in this concern however, several scientist particularly astrophysicists and astronomers such as Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory have been warning that solar irradiance has begun to fall, which will cause a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The decline in solar irradiance he projects will last well into mid century and beyond putting Earth into an ever increasing deep freeze into the next century.

Since I originally wrote this many more scientist have expressed concerns about a cooling world. Dr. Pal Brekke a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo put it this way


"We could be in for a surprise," he cautions. "It's possible that the sun
plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our
time."


and he added:


There is much evidence that the sun's high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating. If it is true that the sun's activity is of great significance in determining the earth's climate, this reduced solar activity could work in the opposite direction to climate change caused by humans. In that case," contends Dr Brekke, "we could find the temperature levelling off or actually falling in the course of a 50-year period" - an assertion that provokes many climate researchers

.
Obviously if this is true and there really is a danger of man made global warming then the sun's reduced activity counteracting it should be welcomed. But as you can tell from the article any mention of the sun having an impact on the climate is frowned upon by the so called mainstream climate community. This is because they do not recognize the sun having anything but a marginal impact on our climate variations. Anything that does not point to greenhouse gasses as the primary driver of the climate is considered sacrilegious. I'll let the reader decide if given millions of years of Earth's existence this makes sense, considering the short history of the automobile industry.

You might also consider that according to these same mainstream climate gurus the warmest year in the industrial age was 1998, and 2008 is the coolest year since then despite atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increasing at an "alarming rate". So why has it cooled? "There is much evidence that the sun's high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating."

In addition to the sun, as if that wasn't big enough, in April it was announced that we transitioned from a warm PDO phase to a cold phase. What does that mean? Well according to Professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University :


The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.


I could point to quite a few scientist in several fields who are either predicting or speculating that this will happen, even scientist who agree with the AGW theory. Since I originally wrote this (prior to the PDO shift) more and more scientist are expressing concern and weighing in on the subject. However that is not the main point I wish to make here.

So often in the Global Warming discussion you hear comments like “What difference does it make if the scientist are wrong, it will be good for the world to cut back on CO2 emissions.”

Believe me when I say I’m all for cutting our dependence on and use of fossil fuels for many reasons, but scientist being wrong about man made global warming is not one of them. Let’s look at just one reason why we should not be in favor of taking actions based on possible faulty conclusions.

First, let us suppose that Dr. Abdussamatov is correct and we begin a prolonged period of global cooling sometime next decade. In point of fact we may have already started, since the globe has shown no warming since 1998, let me say that again in case you did not know. 1998 was the warmest year in the past decade, that means there has been no warming since then, 2008 in case you haven’t noticed doesn’t look like it’s going to threaten the trend, but we will see.

Back to Dr. A, if he is correct, how are you going to feel about climate scientist come the end of next decade? The winters will get worse, food prices will rise even more because growing seasons will shorten rather than lengthen as would happen with global warming. Energy prices will skyrocket even more than now because it cost more to heat than to cool. There will be more deaths because cold related deaths exceed heat related. Believe me when I say everyone will be wishing the scientist were right about global warming because global cooling will be far worse for our world.

But it’s worse than just being upset at the scientist and them loosing credibility. Speaking of which my twenty-two year old daughter has lived her entire life under this ever increasing alarm and threat from global warming. What is it going to do to her generations trust in science if we begin… excuse me continue to cool? But as I said it’s worse than that.

Have you ever been on a trip and gotten on a highway going in the opposite direction than you intended. Suddenly you realize it twenty miles down the road. The worst part is not just the miles you went, it’s also the gas you used and the time you lost and that’s still not all. You have to spend just as much time, go just as many miles and use just as much gas again to get back to where you started. In affect you have lost the equivalent of not the twenty miles but sixty, the twenty gone wrong the twenty return and the twenty more you should have been and you can never get the time and gas back, they are lost.

Let’s look at another way in which this whole global warming hysteria has us going in a direction that could be very painful to return from. First, many countries, the United States now included, are mandating that a percentage of there energy use be replaced by bio-fuels. This is already having a dramatic affect on world food prices and stockpiles. So in the coming years we will be increasingly burning our food supply. As the world population and the demand for agricultural products grow we will be using those needed commodities for fuel instead of for sustenance. If we continue this policy which calls for ever increasing ethanol production it will only exacerbate the problem considerably in a colder world with shorter growing seasons.

It is easy to say that we would just switch back to using the crops for food but the real world does not work that way. Despite the fact that global temperatures have leveled over the past decade, the constant drum beat of climate change has been unrelenting causing world wide changes in energy policies, scientific research, economic planning and priorities.

Do you really believe that the scientist, environmental groups and politicians that have invested so much of their credibility on this theory are suddenly going to say “Oh Gee, we got it wrong, never mind” ? Not to mention that tremendous amounts of capital is being invested in research, development and infrastructures to accommodate this growing industry. I would assume that bio-fuel plants are not cheap. There is also the economic, availability and psychological affect if we are suddenly faced with switching back to using more fossil fuel in order to keep the world from starving. Think about that one for a while.

Like going the wrong way and having to turn around on a trip, tremendous resources are being expended in the wrong direction. Will we really give a hoot about wind farms if we are suffering through -50 degF winters as they just did in Maine, a new record low for all of New England.

While new coal plants are being taken off the table and drilling for oil and natural gas has become anathema to the power elite that control our country, how foolish will we look when we are burning forest and buildings for heat?

If some scientists say that the world is going to heat up and others say it is going to cool down what do you do? Perhaps the best course is to watch and see instead of running in the opposite direction from where you need to go. Making policies and taking steps that will only exacerbate future conditions seems to be a bit extreme. Personally I hope the AGW proponents are correct, the benefits of a warmer world out weigh the negatives, though you seldom hear this side of the discussion.

Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists.Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006:


“Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….”


January 16,2009

And he is getting more and more support for his view because it would be a real shame if we left our children and grandchildren starving in the cold.

From
A Long Road Home Revisited (2-12-2010)

The Global Warming mythology has infected all aspects of society. Not only is every weather event somehow attributable to man made global warming but as important is the lack of preparedness for what in the past would be considered prudent caution in response to what once was considered natural events. Earlier this year when the UK was hammered with heavy snows and cold temperatures which their MET Office had not forecast, they were left unprepared in many respects, not the least of it being salt:

Ministers have ordered highway authorities across the UK to cut their salt usage
by 25% to manage the pressure on salt supplies caused by the most prolonged spell of cold weather in the UK in almost 30 years.


When Washington DC was about to be hit with its third major snow event of the season 25 percent of its plow fleet was down, having trouble getting replacement parts and they too were running short on salt. Why would a city, our nations Capital which is funded by the Federal Government, not have spare parts for such essential equipment? Granted that the snow in the Mid Atlantic region has been historic this winter, but then again based on popular beliefs perpetrated about our climate who would have prepared for historic cold and snow anyway, what a waste right ?

It is one thing for a city such as Dallas to be unprepared for a record breaking foot of snow, the chances are it will be an anomaly in the long run. However the record breaking snow in DC just edged out the previous record (so far) it certainly is not unprecedented.

Indeed governments around the globe have bought so completely into the global warming myth they are afraid of being accused of negligence for not preparing for and establishing policies to meet rising sea levels in the distant future-not snow levels. But it is the snow and ice which we are faced with now isn't it? And governments find themselves unprepared.
***



Now that's a A Sqwaukkkk!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Skyepony:
Pat~ i'm not at all surprised.. what happened to Glory. I would have bet against it ever making it to orbit.ote>

The loss of anything that might reveal what might really be going on can only be welcomed by those who know whats really going on!!
quote:-

Oh, sorry to hear that," station commander Scott Kelly replied. "That's unfortunate."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20039222-239.htm l#ixzz1FfSmYyo8

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20039222-239.ht ml
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HIPPOCRITT:
It is being investigated that the NASA satellite Glory did not make it to orbit today because of Global Warming.  All the CO2 in the atmosphere may have caused a malfunction with the rocket.  Unfortunately, we may have to now rely on postings from Art degree expert JFlorida from the Wunderground blog to determine if in fact, Global Warming was the cause. 

Please, stay tuned.


My pick for stupidest post of the day
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting EYEStoSEA:


A hello back to you :) I believe it is true what they say "Laughter is truly the best medicine."


Thanks.. yes it is..

Did not mean to not mention all my friends who are posting here this afternoon!

Shout out to you all also!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting seflagamma:


Hi Rocket!!! Good to see your smiling face here this afternoon!!!

Hello everyone, been doing a little lurking today and a lot of laughing!


A hello back to you :) I believe it is true what they say "Laughter is truly the best medicine."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting outrocket:


more than any car you will ever drive in 4 life times...:)


Hi Rocket!!! Good to see your smiling face here this afternoon!!!

Hello everyone, been doing a little lurking today and a lot of laughing!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JRRP:


This is really nice visual....TY
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
why don't the muslim terrorists declare a jihad on global warming? maybe they don't believe in it either?
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
108. JRRP
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
103. Surfcropper 12:45 PM PST on March 04, 2011
I think the decision to launch such a valuable research tool on a vessel in California was a costly one.

From now on all global warming research EOV's should be launched and funded by our glorious continental neighbors Europe.

The US risked its skies and budget for the world with 30+ years of the space shuttle program. We don't need harmful rockets polluting our airspace anymore..its the other towncriers' turn.

Somehow invent a windmill vehicle to launch climate toys for a minority's enjoyment. No more burning stuff please.



You heard it, France.... put up or shut up....
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting PrivateIdaho:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
— Carl Sagan


Exactly, good quote.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Surfcropper:
How much CO2 does a Taurus rocket emit?


They ain't Prius hybrids, that's for sure.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
— Carl Sagan
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Surfcropper:
How much CO2 does a Taurus rocket emit?


more than any car you will ever drive in 4 life times...:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
To think we know all there is to know what shapes the earths Climate is absurd and unscientific.

So the argument :

It is absurd to know something with any degree of competence when we don't know everything.

Also interdependent :

Man cant have caused all warming because there are things we don't know and/or it happened before.


See post 54 and 49 for - "It happened before."

But in other words:

Climate scientists think they know everything

Heres how it works:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

So its a kind of populist appeal to a ad hominem predisposition. "they think they know everything and that makes them wrong."


____


It would be nice if we could actually argue about climate science occasionally instead of being subjected to the fallacy grand tour in bad reasoning.

Those are bogus before you even approach the science.

Technically some could in cases work out to be somewhat correct by chance, but equally so could any random statement or collection of words. They do nothing to get you closer to truth.


Seriously, I really suggest that you stop trying to be the voice of all scientists. I highly doubt they need you to explain real science. Which is why I go to college to find out the truth, not blog posters that think they have the world all figured out.

I sure hope most people come here looking to discuss weather, not seeking scientific knowledge.

As many professors Ive taken have said, don't use information found in blogs or message boards to back your paper, that's just foolish, and will only decrease your paper's grade.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
96 NRAamy [why not just NRAmy?] "Dr. Pal Brekke a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo put it this way:
We could be in for a surprise...It's possible that the sun plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.
"

Yeah, and a giant comet could be heading our way. Or extraterrestrials could suck all the carbon dioxide outta our air cuz they're running out back home. (Really STUPID ETs considering that Venus is next door.) And won't we feel silly to have been worrying about AnthropogenicGlobalWarming then???
The thing about "could" is that it contains all possibilities that aren't ruled out by physics. Which doesn't address the issue of plausibility.
One could roll two regular cubic dice of the type commonly used in casinos, and come up with 13 via quantum tunneling. Of course, the odds against it happening within any theoretically foreseeable lifespan of the Universe would be on the order of a googol to 1 -- maybe a bit less, or maybe a LOT more (the calculations ain't exactly "back of the envelope" stuff) -- but it could happen.

Until Brekke comes up with some facts that make his proposition plausible, his words form just another fundamentally unscientific opinion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
those ancient aliens really get around.... to bad they can't fix the Taurus.... maybe they are trying to tell us something about this so-called Global Warming....
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
ZCZC SPCSWOD48 ALL
ACUS48 KWNS 040950
SPC AC 040950

DAY 4-8 CONVECTIVE OUTLOOK
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
0350 AM CST FRI MAR 04 2011

VALID 071200Z - 121200Z

...DISCUSSION...
NEXT IN A SERIES OF UPPER TROUGHS IS EXPECTED TO AMPLIFY OVER THE
SWRN STATES ON MONDAY...THEN TURN ENE INTO THE PLAINS ON
TUESDAY...AND THE ERN STATES WEDNESDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. BOTH GFS
/FASTER SOLUTION/ AND ECMWF HAVE BEEN TRENDING SLOWER WITH THIS
TROUGH OVER THE PAST SEVERAL RUNS AND RECENT GLOBAL ENSEMBLE MEANS
LEND SUPPORT TO THE 00Z ECMWF. THESE SOLUTIONS SUGGEST THAT A
MODEST SFC CYCLONE WILL TRAVEL FROM THE TX/OK PANHANDLE EARLY
TUESDAY TO NRN LOWER MI BY WEDNESDAY NIGHT WITH A COLD FRONT
SWEEPING SEWD ACROSS THE MS RIVER VALLEY AND INTO THE MIDWEST AND
DEEP SOUTH BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK.

STRONG 850 MB SLY LOW-LEVEL FLOW AHEAD OF THE COLD FRONT SHOULD
TRANSPORT MODIFIED GULF MOISTURE NWD...ALTHOUGH PRECEDING FRONTAL
PASSAGE INTO THE GULF BASIN THIS WEEKEND MAY GIVE RISE TO SOME
UNCERTAINTY ON MOISTURE QUALITY. NONETHELESS...THUNDERSTORMS SHOULD
DEVELOP LATE TUESDAY OVER THE ERN PLAINS AND THEN TRANSLATE ENE
ACROSS THE MIDWEST...OH VALLEY...GULF COAST STATES WEDNESDAY AND
INTO THE NERN STATES...MID-ATLANTIC AND CAROLINAS BY THURSDAY.

POSITIVE-TILT NATURE TO THE STORM SYSTEM SUGGESTS THAT MAJORITY OF
THE STRONG DEEP-LAYER WIND FIELD WILL BE ON THE COLD SIDE OF THE
SYSTEM. THIS SCENARIO OFTEN LEADS TO CONVECTIVE MODE UNCERTAINTY.
SO WHILE THERE COULD BE SOME SEVERE FROM THE OZARKS EWD INTO THE
MID-SOUTH IN THE TUESDAY-WEDNESDAY TIME FRAME...QUESTIONS INVOLVING
THE MOISTURE RETURN...THE TIMING CONTINUITY ISSUES IN THE MODEL
SUITE AND THE ORIENTATION OF THE SHORTWAVE TROUGH PRECLUDE
CONFIDENTLY PLACING A HIGH-END SEVERE RISK AREA AT THIS TIME.

..RACY.. 03/04/2011
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
95. Skyepony (Mod)
February ACE total was the 7th most since 1970.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 161 Comments: 37448
Quoting JFLORIDA:
POST THEM JED - POST THE OTHER CAUSES. If its absurd. If we have had 50 + years of dimming and warming explained by CO2 then perhaps you could post these other causes.

If its "absurd" surely you have at least one worth considering.


Sigh.... I used to laugh at you, now I just feel sorry for you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NRAamy,I made a mistake.  I got the info off  icebergfinder.com.     copy/pasted it.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1460
SSTs in Caribbean are warming.Signifantly.
Can't wait for the first disturbance to watch!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
overwash, how are you able to print that big? I like it..... much easier to read.... well done...

:)
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946

Viewing: 139 - 89

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
72 °F
Mostly Cloudy