Unprecedented May heat in Greenland; update on 2011 Greenland ice melt

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:53 PM GMT on May 31, 2012

Share this Blog
40
+

The record books for Greenland's climate were re-written on Tuesday, when the mercury hit 24.8°C (76.6°F) at Narsarsuaq, Greenland, on the southern coast. According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, this is the hottest temperature on record in Greenland for May, and is just 0.7°C (1.3°F) below the hottest temperature ever measured in Greenland. The previous May record was 22.4°C (72.3°F) at Kangerlussuaq (called Sondre Stormfjord in Danish) on May 31, 1991. The 25.2°C at Narsarsuaq on June 22, 1957 is the only June temperature measured in Greenland warmer than yesterday's 24.8°C reading. Wunderground's extremes page shows that the all-time warmest temperature record for Greenland is 25.5°C (77.9°F) set on July 26, 1990. The exceptional warmth this week was caused by the combination of an intense ridge of high pressure and a local foehn wind, said the Danish Meteorological Institute. The unusual May heat has extended to Scotland, which had its hottest May temperature on record on May 25 at Achnagart: 29.3°C (85°F). Greenland's Narsarsuaq has seen a string of 3 consecutive days over 70°F this week--the 3rd, 7th, and 12th warmest days there since record keeping began in 1941. The ridge of high pressure responsible is expected to stay in place several more days, bringing additional 70° days over Southern Greenland. The warm May temperatures could be setting the stage for a big Greenland melt season this summer--the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI) is predicting a 50 - 60% that the southern 2/3 of Greenland will experience above-average temperatures this summer. They forecast just a 10 - 15% chance of below-average temperatures.


Figure 1. Difference between the number of melt days in 2011 and the average number of melt days during the period 1979 - 2010. Large sections of the island experienced twenty more days with melting conditions than average. Image credit: Arctic Report Card

Why Greenland is important
If the massive icecap on Greenland were to melt, global sea level would rise 7 meters (23 ft). Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3°C by 2100, to levels similar to those present during that warm period 120,000 years ago. During that period, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted, increasing sea level by 2.2 - 3.4 meters (7.2 - 11.2 ft.) However, the 2007 IPCC report expects melting of the Greenland ice sheet to occur over about a 1,000 year period, delaying much of the expected sea level rise for many centuries. While Greenland's ice isn't going to be melting completely and catastrophically flooding low-lying areas of the earth in the next few decades (sea level is only rising about 3 mm per year or 1.2 inches per decade at present), the risk later this century needs to be taken seriously. Higher sea levels will cause increased erosion, salt water intrusion, and storm surge damage in coastal areas, in addition to a loss of barrier formations such as islands, sand bars, and reefs that would normally protect coastal zones from battering by waves and wind. Additionally, coastal zones are sites of incredible economic and agricultural activity, which would also be negatively affected by higher sea levels. Currently, melting ice from Greenland is thought to cause about 0.7 mm/year of global sea level rise, which is about 20 - 25% of the global total, according to an international research group led by the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, in an article published the latest issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 1 June 2012. In 2007, the IPCC estimated that Greenland ice melt was responsible for only 10 - 15% of the total global sea level rise. Ice loss in Greenland is accelerating, and if current ice loss trends continue for the next ten years, Greenland's contribution to sea level rise will double to 1.4 mm/yr by 2022. The increased ice loss in Greenland is being driven by a combination of warmer air temperatures, warmer ocean temperatures, and loss of Arctic sea ice. Ocean temperatures surrounding Southern Greenland have increased by 1 - 2°C since 1990 (figure at right.)

Figure 2. Monthly unsmoothed values of the total mass (in gigatons, Gt), of the Greenland ice sheet from the GRACE satellites. On the horizontal axis, each year begins on 1 January. Each small + symbol is a monthly value. Between 2003 - 2009, Greenland lost an average of 250 gigatons of ice per year. In 2011, the loss was 70% greater than that. Image credit: Arctic Report Card

Update on the 2011 Greenland melt season
According to the 2011 Arctic Report Card, it was another very warm year in Greenland in 2011, which led to substantial melting of the ice. Here are some of the highlights from the report:

1) The area and duration of melting at the surface of the Greenland ice sheet in summer 2011 were the third highest since 1979.

2) Increased surface melting and below average summer snowfall in recent years has made the icecap steadily darker. In 2011, the icecap had the lowest reflectivity (albedo) of any year since satellite measurements of reflectivity began in 2000.

3) The area of glaciers that empty into the sea continued to decrease, though at less than half the rate of the previous 10 years.

4) Total ice sheet mass loss in 2011 was 70% larger than the 2003 - 2009 average annual loss rate of -250 gigatons per year. According to satellite gravity data obtained since 2002, ice sheet mass loss is accelerating.

Resources:
Wunderground's Greenland page.
Wunderground's sea level rise page.
Danish Meteorological Institute's extremes page for Greenland.

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: 183 - 133

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

183. Caner
Quoting BobWallace:


I'm plenty old.

You hear a lot of stuff that is conflicting. Don't we all?

But, what does the actual data tell you? Not someone's opinion about the number of temperature records broken, but the actual count? Doesn't it make sense to use actual data rather than hearsay?

If you think making your decisions based on data rather than opinion then take a look at what is happening to temperature records. We're blowing the old records away. It's not even close.

I don't know how old you are, but this is not the climate in which I grew up. When I was young the North Pole was surrounded by ice that was more than 20 feet thick and would never melt. Anyone who suggested that we'd ever see a melted Arctic Ocean would have been laughed out of town. Fact is, we could see the Arctic melt in the next couple of years. There's very little chance it will take ten years before we see a complete summer melt.



Yep, i never said it wasn't getting warmer.

It just not the ants walking around on the candied apple lying in the parking lot causing it to warm, its the sun, and earths natural cyclical periods.

We are at all time lows, for both temps and CO2 levels, geologically speaking.

I really don't think my car engine is going to accomplish what asteroid impacts and super volcanoes failed to...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
New ecmwf has a weak vorticity wave coming through the SE US.
I want to see if it has that bizarre backward low that it did on the 0z run.


Backward low?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New ecmwf has a weak vorticity wave coming through the SE US.
I want to see if it has that bizarre backward low that it did on the 0z run.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:


Two words: Milankovitch cycles

Google them, please.


Id do it because I'm curious, can't spell it :/
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:


/shrug.

asteroid impacts, macro scale super volcanoes, planet-wide firestorms, global greenhouse conditions with earth covering seas of algae plumes, creating CO2 levels 4000 times higher than today...

None of that managed to cause runaway, life ending global warming... it all balanced out.

But yeah, these gasoline engines.. We're done for...

Just ignore than big flaming fusion fireball in the sky though, the one thing we are sure of is that has NOTHING to do with temps and ice levels down here...


Anyway, here's an estimate of how much CO2 we're emitting, how much gets absorbed by the Amazon Rainforest and projections of where we're going.
Link Article 1a
Accelerated Global Warming and Atmospheric CO2 Emissions

An assessment of the likely increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to climate change and if the Amazon Rainforest ceases to be a CO2 sink.
There are other links that can tell you who this organization is and what they are trying to do.

I am not saying this particular group is the authority in the matter, I just found it by googling. I am grateful that American car manufacturers have finally begun to listen to the majority of consumers who want to use less gas and produce less pollutants. I honestly do not know what it will take other than a groundswelling demand that we pay attention to our global environment regarding this issue and demand our governments institute policies to address CO2 emissions and global warming. That the sun is going through a more active phase should only speed up our actions to clean up our planet.

The way world views change appear to hinge on a defining moment, but historians know that these are pivotal moments only and the groundswell for change had been occuring for some time. Dr. Masters is an important part of this process. And I applaud his efforts to bring to us regular folks the information we would not be exposed to otherwise. We are also noting the minute changes in the cycle, like the droughts and floods, extreme weather events, and noting the records broken. What we are concerned about is the ecosystem not become broken, for example, the coral populations that contribute to the fish population...the knee joint is connected to the hip joint, etc.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:


You are on a micro scale there, but regardless, you fail to take into accout what spectrum emission changes may be going on as well, more infrared, less UV, etc, etc, etc..

Regardless, you also fail, Earth was in a ice age with CO2 levels thousands of times today's level, so explain that.



Statistical graphs can show anything you want, or nothing. You can always find one to prove the other guy wrong.


Two words: Milankovitch cycles

Google them, please.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks Dr. Masters...good Afternoon all
Member Since: November 6, 2010 Posts: 11 Comments: 7888
Quoting Caner:


Yeah, I keep hearing this myth...

Every year that we have unusually low numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every year we have unusually high numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every year we have average numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every time we set a new record, it's the fault of climate change.

We used to just call them low, high, average and new records, before it was climate change... don't know if you are old enough to remember that.


I'm plenty old.

You hear a lot of stuff that is conflicting. Don't we all?

But, what does the actual data tell you? Not someone's opinion about the number of temperature records broken, but the actual count? Doesn't it make sense to use actual data rather than hearsay?

If you think making your decisions based on data rather than opinion then take a look at what is happening to temperature records. We're blowing the old records away. It's not even close.

I don't know how old you are, but this is not the climate in which I grew up. When I was young the North Pole was surrounded by ice that was more than 20 feet thick and would never melt. Anyone who suggested that we'd ever see a melted Arctic Ocean would have been laughed out of town. Fact is, we could see the Arctic melt in the next couple of years. There's very little chance it will take ten years before we see a complete summer melt.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Nice showers and T-storms today in SW La. hope all my
friends who need it badly get some soon...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


"let it rain let it poor she dont love me anymore" - David nail

Come on
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting Caner:


/shrug.

asteroid impacts, macro scale super volcanoes, planet-wide firestorms, global greenhouse conditions with earth covering seas of algae plumes, creating CO2 levels 4000 times higher than today...

None of that managed to cause runaway, life ending global warming... it all balanced out.

But yeah, these gasoline engines.. We're done for...

Just ignore than big flaming fusion fireball in the sky though, the one thing we are sure of is that has NOTHING to do with temps and ice levels down here...


Actually, this is completely wrong.

Earth-covering seas of algae back in the Proterozoic was what added free oxygen into the atmosphere and caused a major extinction of all the anaerobes.

The eruption of the Siberian traps at the end of the Permian led to a major mass-extinction event that eliminated 95% of all taxa.

The eruption of the Deccan traps at the end of the Cretaceous probably contributed to the non-avian dinosaurs exiting stage-right (the asteroid impact was likely a coup-de-grace).

There were also extinction events at various parts of the Paleogene, a period of large climatic shifts controlled indirectly through tectonics.

Focusing on the sun as the source of all that's happened over the last 100 years or so completely ignores that the solar output DOES NOT follow global temperature patterns. It's wishful thinking, nothing more.

You may also wish to check this link if you're going to expand warming throughout the solar system:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on -mars.htm

All of this being said, you're also shifting the goalposts. No one has claimed that all life will go extinct via global warming, or that life won't go on.. however, that doesn't mean that the environment won't become exceedingly hostile to a population of 7 billion+ humans and the resources we need to sustain ourselves. Just as if Yellowstone had a M8.0+ supereruption tomorrow, or a 1-km wide bolide impact occurred a week from now, life as we know it would surely change for us and our descendants; the difference is, we'll have brought our own misery on ourselves due to our hubris.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
GOM is Closed due to Shear aloft.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127702
Quoting Caner:


You are on a micro scale there, but regardless, you fail to take into accout what spectrum emission changes may be going on as well, more infrared, less UV, etc, etc, etc..

Regardless, you also fail, Earth was in a ice age with CO2 levels thousands of times today's level, so explain that.



Statistical graphs can show anything you want, or nothing. You can always find one to prove the other guy wrong.


...lies, damnable lies, and statistics to paraphrase Disraeli...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
U betcha 98,, looking forward to it ..had Half Inch Uptown already.


I got like a quarter already, small cell rolled through about 10 am

I'm ready, getting cloudy
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:



This image tells the tale...not much gonna happen in near term in Atl Basin
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:


You are on a micro scale there, but regardless, you fail to take into accout what spectrum emission changes may be going on as well, more infrared, less UV, etc, etc, etc..

Regardless, you also fail, Earth was in a ice age with CO2 levels thousands of times today's level, so explain that.



Statistical graphs can show anything you want, or nothing. You can always find one to prove the other guy wrong.


Good point
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
U betcha 98,, looking forward to it ..had Half Inch Uptown already.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127702
Quoting Patrap:


We gonna get DA RAIN PAT

Lord knows we need it
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
165. Caner
Quoting Patrap:
Sure, it's da Flaming Gas Ball in the Sky.

LOL

EPIC FAIL

Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased


The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.



Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.


You are on a micro scale there, but regardless, you fail to take into accout what spectrum emission changes may be going on as well, more infrared, less UV, etc, etc, etc..

Regardless, you also fail, Earth was in a ice age with CO2 levels thousands of times today's level, so explain that.



Statistical graphs can show anything you want, or nothing. You can always find one to prove the other guy wrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:


Well, you have to take into account the increase in size too...

The sun is also expanding, hence we are getting closer as well as it increasing output...

Case in point, in 6 billion years it will have only increased 60%, but it won't matter, because our planet will be inside the sun already...

So the actual effects will be manifold the power output.

In only 2 billion years our planet will already be a cinder like Mercury, so you don't even have to worry about it reaching 20%

I'm on your side, don't think we are doing to much harm, the sun is only slowly expanding, and the increase is why to low in energy output, from 1 watt per square meter to 1.0000001 watts per square meter.... In 6 billion years the sun will simply be a giant diamond in the sky. No I'm serious a hot and solid glowing carbon!

I think it's natural fluxiations of many things combined, not us. My two cents I hate these convos anyway
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127702
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
"When using Dr. Masters' blog, please refrain from posting material not relevant to the discussion of tropical weather, or the topic of the blog entry itself." The topic of today's blog entry: Greenland's temperatures and ice.


Not only is this Dr. Master's blog, he happens to have a PhD im meteorology with renowned expertise in tropical weather systems. For those who have been following his posts, you might remember that he has made frequent comments about how the Jet Stream has been responding to warmer arctic temperatures. Changes in the Jet Stream will continue to effect every aspect of weather-related events (extreme temperatures, extreme droughts, extreme storms, tropical systems, etc).

Knowledge of how arctic temperatures effect the Jet Stream and subsequently changing weather patterns should be basic knowledge for any serious participant on this site, whether they are chasing tornadoes, tracking hurricanes or just want to know whether next weekend will be good for a BBQ!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127702
Wear a Helmet!
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127702
Well after skimming through the previous comments, the blog looks like one big facepalm today, so I think I'll leave things be. If you need me, I'll be out somewhere near Fredricksburg waiting for convective initiation this afternoon (or just enjoying the scenic Hill Country if nothing actually develops). :P
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:
What's amazing to me is all the 'settled' science refused to acknowledge any of this
It could be, and I'm just going out on a limb here, but it could be that it hasn't been acknowledged because it's gibberish. We can and have been able to measure the sun's energy output quite precisely for some time now. The science behind climate change is overwhelming. You may not agree with predictions of how fast things will change, but it's beyond dispute that the planet is warming and that CO2 is increasing. No amount of manufactured doubt splattered on the wall can change these simple, verifiable facts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Solar: 10% per billion years vs. the observed compositional differences of the troposphere and observed patterns of global temperature, oceanic temperatures, dissolved CO2 content, pH, biome changes, and other effects of the last 50 years.

Pretty sure it's not the "alarmists" grasping at straws with their arguments...

Quoting Caner:


Naw, nothing like that.

I don't think daily high / low continental temps are remotely related to tropical weather systems, and even less to AGW.

I do believe they have a strong relation to the increasing age of the sun, the changing composition of it's fuel, and it's expected 10% per billion years rate of increased energy output.

Makes perfect sense to me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sure, it's da Flaming Gas Ball in the Sky.

LOL

EPIC FAIL

Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased


The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.



Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127702
154. Caner
Quoting SteveDa1:


Hmmm... 10% over a billion years hey? So the warming we've experienced during the last century is due to the 0.000001% increased output in energy. Right.


Well, you have to take into account the increase in size too...

The sun is also expanding, hence we are getting closer as well as it increasing output...

Case in point, in 6 billion years it will have only increased 60%, but it won't matter, because our planet will be inside the sun already...

So the actual effects will be manifold the power output.

In only 2 billion years our planet will already be a cinder like Mercury, so you don't even have to worry about it reaching 20%
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looks like a squall line should develop:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
152. Caner
Quoting Chicklit:


And it makes perfect sense to me why you would ignore the plausibility of scientific studies that maintain the burning of fossil fuels at current rates and extent world-wise is affecting our climatic environment.


/shrug.

asteroid impacts, macro scale super volcanoes, planet-wide firestorms, global greenhouse conditions with earth covering seas of algae plumes, creating CO2 levels 4000 times higher than today...

None of that managed to cause runaway, life ending global warming... it all balanced out.

But yeah, these gasoline engines.. We're done for...

Just ignore than big flaming fusion fireball in the sky though, the one thing we are sure of is that has NOTHING to do with temps and ice levels down here...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HOUSTON/GALVESTON TX
101 PM CDT THU MAY 31 2012

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN LEAGUE CITY HAS ISSUED A

* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
EXTREME NORTH CENTRAL FORT BEND COUNTY IN TEXAS...
EXTREME SOUTHWESTERN HARRIS COUNTY IN TEXAS...

* UNTIL 130 PM CDT

* AT 1259 PM CDT...DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM
CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO. THIS DANGEROUS STORM WAS LOCATED
NEAR KATY...AND MOVING SOUTHEAST AT 15 MPH. SPOTTERS ARE REPORTING
A FUNNEL AT GRAND PARKWAY AT FM 1253. TAKE COVER NOW.

* LOCATIONS IMPACTED INCLUDE...
MISSION BEND AND PECAN GROVE.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

TAKE COVER NOW. MOVE TO A BASEMENT OR AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE
LOWEST FLOOR OF A STURDY BUILDING. AVOID WINDOWS. IF IN A MOBILE
HOME OR OUTDOORS...MOVE TO THE CLOSEST SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER AND
PROTECT YOURSELF FROM FLYING DEBRIS.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:


Naw, nothing like that.

I don't think daily high / low continental temps are remotely related to tropical weather systems, and even less to AGW.

I do believe they have a strong relation to the increasing age of the sun, the changing composition of it's fuel, and it's expected 10% per billion years rate of increased energy output.

Makes perfect sense to me.


Hmmm... 10% over a billion years hey? So the warming we've experienced during the last century is due to the 0.000001% increased output in energy. Right.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LinkFort Polk, LA Radar
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
The 30% probability area has been expanded eastward and northward.



thats not good..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:


Naw, nothing like that.

I don't think daily high / low continental temps are remotely related to tropical weather systems, and even less to AGW.

I do believe they have a strong relation to the increasing age of the sun, the changing composition of it's fuel, and it's expected 10% per billion years rate of increased energy output.

Makes perfect sense to me.


And it makes perfect sense to me why you would ignore the plausibility of scientific studies that maintain the burning of fossil fuels at current rates and extent world-wide is affecting our climatic environment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The 30% probability area has been expanded eastward and northward.

Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 31608
Quoting SteveDa1:
There are two arguments inside my head fighting over which one is more representative of the future...

Sadly, I'm almost entirely positive that widespread change - in the form of our cessation of the burning of fossil fuels - will only occur once catastrophic consequences arise (such as the flooding of coastal cities like Miami, making them inhabitable).

But then a more optimistic side of me shows up, perhaps just trying to make me less depressed and actually feel hopeful. I start thinking about new technologies and our dependence on money. Once new technologies are cheaper than the burning of fossil fuels and we can create electricity without producing CO2, I cannot think of one reason why we'd keep burning coal or gas.

It all makes sense. But then, when will this occur?


Me fears only once we're on a rapidly downhill course environmentally.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ILwthrfan:
I think I understand what your trying to say...like this right???  Nea posted this two blogs ago.  

I think he is just saying we can't blame every event on climate change. Well I hope so anyway.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
143. Caner
Quoting ILwthrfan:

I think I understand what your trying to say...like this right???



Naw, nothing like that.

I don't think daily high / low continental temps are remotely related to tropical weather systems, and even less to AGW.

I do believe they have a strong relation to the increasing age of the sun, the changing composition of it's fuel, and it's expected 10% per billion years rate of increased energy output.

Makes perfect sense to me.

The sun has crossed the threshold of middle age, from this point on, every single day it will fuse more helium than the day previous, and every single day it's output will increase, until it reaches red giant phase.

What's amazing to me is all the 'settled' science refused to acknowledge any of this, or the equal global warming we see occurring on mars.

Only one suspect on two planets at the same time... Crime-solving 101:

1. motive.
2. opportunity.

Who has it, both counts?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There are two arguments inside my head fighting over which one is more representative of the future...

Sadly, I'm almost entirely positive that widespread change - in the form of our cessation of the burning of fossil fuels - will only occur once catastrophic consequences arise (such as the flooding of coastal cities like Miami, making them inhabitable).

But then a more optimistic side of me shows up, perhaps just trying to make me less depressed and actually feel hopeful. I start thinking about new technologies and our dependence on money. Once new technologies are cheaper than the burning of fossil fuels and we can create electricity without producing CO2, I cannot think of one reason why we'd keep burning coal or gas.

It all makes sense. But then, when will this occur?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127702
Quoting Caner:
i'm just questioning why a blog with no relevance to the subject is linked on the tropical page.
Dr. Masters' blog is linked to from many diffrerent places. The tropical weather page; the climate page; the blogs page, and so on, and so forth. And that is what makes it entirely relevant.
Quoting Caner:
I never questioned what 'truths' the man be allowed to write about, he can blog birtherism, little green men or anthropogenic global warming, they all rank about the same to me, which has nothing to do with tropical weather systems.
Perhaps it's because people hold such uneducated opinions as these that Dr. Masters feels the need to write these type of entries. That is, anyone who believes a warming climate will have no effect on tropical weather systems clearly needs a refrehser in at least the basics. (And anyone who equates the hard science of climate change with the bigoted blathering of Birtherism needs far more than that.)
Quoting Caner:
I mean even the warning on the comments state, "When using Dr. Masters' blog, please refrain from posting material not relevant to the discussion of tropical weather", which shows the direct link they consider it to have.
You omitted the latter part of that statement: "When using Dr. Masters' blog, please refrain from posting material not relevant to the discussion of tropical weather, or the topic of the blog entry itself." The topic of today's blog entry: Greenland's temperatures and ice.
Quoting Caner:
Just think they should abide by their own rules here :)
Again--and you seem to have missed this point again--it's Dr. Masters' blog, and his site. He is the "they" of whom you speak, so even if he cared to change the rules midstream--which he hasn't--he's got the right to do so.

Anyway, WU's official climate change position statement is as follows:

Earth's climate is warming. This time, humans are mostly responsible, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. The warming climate is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems, and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years. There are economically sensible steps we can take to lessen the damage--the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action.

You may disagree with that, as is your right. And if you have a valid and honest scientific rebuttal to it, I'm certain it will be considered with due respect. But simply complaining that you don't like the subject matter covered by the site's principles is likely to not going to change that official position one bit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
That last photo has always bothered me--in large part because I did IT work for the builder (it's Islandwalk in Naples). Hideous...

Really? I sympathize. The company I work for has some clients I'd rather we not have, we all have to put a roof over our heads.

It's actually unfair of me to put the top photo of Hong Kong beside the one from Forida. I used both (plus Rio) as a visual shortcut for "we breed like rabbits in a petri dish."

There's a line of thought that says ultra high density developments are a better solution to the amount of people this planet carries then any amount of suburban / low density sprawl. Frankly, we can't all live on eco paradise farm steads.

If done right (and that's a big IF judging on past human endeavors) the concentration of people within work/living centers could cut down on resource use per capita even when factoring in transport of goods/food in and waste/goods out. UHD can allow for the preservation of larger amounts of natural lands and the use of high yielding lands for agri rather than housing. It can also, again if done properly, limit death and destruction from weather and earth related events.

One of the cons is that we end up living and dying in situations that remind many of ants scrambling on top of each other. Maybe that's one of the mental shifts that needs to occur just as mental shifts occurred previously in human evolution?

While we are not ants we are increasingly everywhere and so need to become better organized, efficient, empathic, and maybe a tad less selfish.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:


Yeah, I keep hearing this myth...

Every year that we have unusually low numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every year we have unusually high numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every year we have average numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every time we set a new record, it's the fault of climate change.

We used to just call them low, high, average and new records, before it was climate change... don't know if you are old enough to remember that.
I think I understand what your trying to say...like this right???  Nea posted this two blogs ago.  

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:


Duh, maybe try the link I highlighted Short round Rita.


Do you feel it necessary to be insulting when replying to a blogger? Just asking
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:


The guy is talking about adding trees not the actual term replanting trees, I don't think he said anything about cutting trees down and replanting, READ

Adding trees is good.
Replanting them may not be good!
I am all in favour of planting new trees where there are none at the moment.
The reason for my comment using a quoted reference was to emphasize the possible error of going headlong into replanting.
Managed planting and replanting of trees often leads to the destruction of most if not all of the other ground plants which in themselves take up large amounts of CO2. This has been shown to have happened in parts of the Amazon rainforest. Pine plantations are another example.
A return to natural vegetation of areas would seem a more useful long term approach.
The end results of some tree planting and replanting may be less CO2 being taken up by the trees than allready is by the present vegetation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Caner:


Not at all, you really should read what i wrote, you seem to have specifically omitted it from your quote.

Like i said, the man can write about whatever he wants on his blog, i'm just questioning why a blog with no relevance to the subject is linked on the tropical page.

Indeed, i specifically asked why his blog was not linked on the climate change page and a different, more tropical-centric blog linked on the tropical page.

I never questioned what 'truths' the man be allowed to write about, he can blog birtherism, little green men or anthropogenic global warming, they all rank about the same to me, which has nothing to do with tropical weather systems.

I mean even the warning on the comments state, "When using Dr. Masters' blog, please refrain from posting material not relevant to the discussion of tropical weather", which shows the direct link they consider it to have.

Just think they should abide by their own rules here :)


Because in this world, they're aren't any rules, just like we think we have freedom, when things get tough you'll see how much freedom you really have. Everything is a smoke screen, an illusion if you will.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
134. Caner
Quoting BobWallace:


Climate change is totally related to tropical weather.

Kittens are not.

Alarmism - is that the love of red things attached to walls? Or something to do with clocks? Certainly you don't disapprove of people telling us about a danger headed our way....





Yeah, I keep hearing this myth...

Every year that we have unusually low numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every year we have unusually high numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every year we have average numbers of hurricanes, it's the fault of climate change.

Every time we set a new record, it's the fault of climate change.

We used to just call them low, high, average and new records, before it was climate change... don't know if you are old enough to remember that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormPro:




Look at the date


Sorry..I copied wrong outlook...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 183 - 133

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog 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.