Next century's most important place in the world--Greenland?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:58 PM GMT on December 21, 2007

Share this Blog

If one had to pick the region of the world most likely to influence the course of human history this century, the Middle East would be the obvious choice, due to its political volatility and rich oil resources. However, the Middle East may have a significant challenger next century from a seemingly unlikely place--Greenland. Why Greenland? Well, the Greenland ice sheet holds enough water to raise global sea level 7 meters (23 feet). There are worrisome signs that the ice sheet might be more vulnerable than we thought to significant melting near the end of the century, according to research results presented at last week's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. The meeting is the world's largest annual gathering of climate change scientists.

For climate change scientists, Greenland is clearly the most important place in the world. You could tell this by the way glaciers with unpronounceable names like "Kangerdlugssuaq" rolled off their tongues in a smooth, practiced manner at talks given at the AGU meeting. At least 120 presentations focused on the Arctic or Greenland, and fully 52 of these concerned Greenland. I attended roughly 20 of these talks, and most of the presenters made it clear that they were quite concerned about the future of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, particularly in light of the astounding Arctic sea ice melt that occurred in 2007. A number of these talks raised the possibility that we've reached a tipping point in the Arctic. A complete loss of summertime sea ice may occur between 2013 and 2040, three of the presenters said, with the resulting warming dooming the Greenland ice sheet to a slow but inevitable melting process over a period of centuries. None of the presenters expressed the view that the current melting of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic sea ice was due to a natural cycle that would completely halt or reverse in the next few years or decades.

At a talk on "The Recent Arctic Warm Period", Dr. Jim Overland, an Arctic expert with NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, didn't offer his view on whether a tipping point had been reached. Instead, he asked the audience to vote. The options he presented:

* A The melt back of Arctic sea ice observed in 2007 is permanent and will not lessen.
* B Ice coverage will partially recover but continue to decrease.
* C The ice would recover to 1980s levels but then continue to decline over the coming century.

Both Options A and B had audience support, but only one brave soul voted for the most conservative option C.

Figure 1. A research submarine breaks through the Arctic ice. Image credit: Bernard Coakley.

The latest news from Greenland
I was amazed see the tremendous breadth and intensity of research efforts focused on Greenland and the Arctic, presented at AGU. Extra funding has been given to research efforts as part of the International Polar Year (IPY) program, scheduled to run March 2007 through 2009. Satellites like Icesat and GRACE measure the extent of Greenland's ice from above, aided by a fleet of small and large research aircraft. Scientists now have unmanned aircraft that can use runways or be launched by slingshot that can measure the extent of Greenland's melt water lakes. The air armada will be joined next year by the Total Pole Airship, the first blimp used for Arctic studies. Manned and unmanned submarines measure the thickness of the sea ice surrounding the island, and both permanent and temporary bases dotted across Greenland and the polar sea ice house scientists doing land-based studies. Ships and buoys also add data from the ocean areas.

A short list of the results presented at AGU all point to an ice sheet in peril:

- Melting of snow above 2000 meters elevation on Greenland reached a new record in 2007 (Tedesco, 2007).

- Leigh Stearns of the University of Maine's Climate Change Institute showed that the contribution of Greenland melting to global sea level rise has doubled in the last five years. According to the 2007 IPCC report (see Figure 4.18), Greenland may account for as much as 10% of the total global annual sea rise of about 3-4 mm/year (approximately 1.5 inches per decade).

- Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) have warmed over 5° C (9° F) over the waters west of Greenland since 1990 (Figure 1, to the right). This has caused the ice-free season to increase by over 60 days per year along the coast.

- The Greenland ice sheet has experienced conditions as warm as those today in the past. Lowell et al. (2007) found organic remains in eastern Greenland that had just been exposed by melting ice, and dated these remains at between A.D. 800 to 1014. Thus, this portion of Greenland was ice-free about 1000 years ago, and temperatures were presumably similar to today's. Erik the Red took advantage of this warm period to establish the first Norse settlements in Greenland around 950 A.D. However, the climate cooled after 1200 A.D., and the Norse settlements disappeared by 1550.

For more information, see our new Greenland feature on our expanding climate change page.

Jeff Masters

Lowell, T.V., et al., 2007, Organic Remains from the Istorvet Ice Cap, Liverpool Land, East Greenland: A Record of Late Holocene Climate Change,, Eos Trans. AGU, 88(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract C13A-04.

Stearns, L.A., and G.S. Hamilton, 2007, New States of Behavior: Current Status of Outlet Glaciers in Southeast Greenland and the Potential for Similar Changes Elsewhere, Eos Trans. AGU, 88(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract C13A-06.

Tedesco, M., "A New Record in 2007 for Melting in Greenland," EOS, 88:39, 2007, 383.

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: 294 - 244

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

294. sydneyaust1
1:54 PM GMT on December 22, 2007
Great selection of articles about Greenland Ice Sheet

Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice


and many thanks to Vortfix on the Mosquito information
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
293. sydneyaust1
1:41 PM GMT on December 22, 2007
Global Warming Is Destroying Coral Reefs, Major Study Warns

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
292. vortfix
1:54 PM GMT on December 22, 2007
Aedes albopictus (family Culicidae: mosquitos), the Asian tiger mosquito or forest day mosquito, is characterized by its black and white striped legs and small, black and white body. It was native to Southeast Asia, and occupied a habitat that spread from Madagascar eastward to New Guinea, and north to the latitude of Korea. They have been found in the southern USA since 1985,[1] and in Nigeria since 2002.[2] In 2007, the species was present in New Zealand[3] Eastern Canada[4], and 12 European countries including Italy and Spain where it may already be an established resident.

This species is able to survive in a wide range of habitats and conditions, including cold mountainous areas. It is generally more aggressive than indigenous mosquitoes, and is outcompeting them. The asian tiger mosquito has a rapid bite that allows it to escape most attempts by people to swat it.

Other mosquitoes in North America, such as Ochlerotatus canadensis, have a similar leg pattern. Asian tiger mosquitoes were first found in North America in a shipment of used tires at the port of Houston in 1985. Since then they have spread across southern USA, and as far up the East Coast as Maine. This species is an introduced species in Hawaii as well, but has been there since before 1896.

Member Since: October 29, 2007 Posts: 135 Comments: 46068
291. latitude25
8:41 AM EST on December 22, 2007
The Cult of Global Warming

All of a sudden, the scientific predictions of a bunch of glorified weathermen
went from being the laughing stock

to very accurate

We are supposed to believe that after all the years of them never getting it right
That all of a sudden, out of no where,
They have nailed this thing completely and totally accurate.

Member Since: August 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
290. sydneyaust1
1:36 PM GMT on December 22, 2007
SAHARAN DUST HAS CHILLING EFFECT ON NORTH ATLANTIC - Effects on hurricane seasons 2005 & 2006

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
289. latitude25
8:33 AM EST on December 22, 2007
Recent carrying capacity estimates

Didn't scientists, in the recent past, have another dooms day prediction based on models?
That the population of the earth would be so big
right now
that the earth would not be able to support it?

That modeled scientific prediction did not come true either.

Member Since: August 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 3654
288. sydneyaust1
1:33 PM GMT on December 22, 2007
First Mosquito borne Tropical disease in warming europe

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
287. Orcasystems
1:34 PM GMT on December 22, 2007
Morning Storm and Shen :)
Storm, how about a long term forcast for Cancun.. Jan 5 - 19

Shen, I hope your not up to your whatsit in snow :)

14 days 4 hours 24 min
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
285. AugustFalcon
1:17 PM GMT on December 22, 2007
Re: #244 sebastianjer
"By the way, I have asked this before, I can't find the answer, how many countries decreased CO2 emissions in 2006? If anyone knows or knows where to look I'd appreciate it."

Here is a link to a table showing some info through 2004. The U.S. Statistical Abstract 2008 has some U.S. figures which are more up to date.

The Census Bureau may also have updated the table or the sources underlying it. Haven't checked.

cheers ...jack
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
284. MikeOhio
1:15 PM GMT on December 22, 2007
"Folks this is one of the better runs on this thread we've had on here. Kudos to all. It would help if references cited were included in posts as allows evaluation and follow up as well as follows established practice in avoiding Plagiarism."

I can't cite my own brain....

it doesn't matter, for some reason my comments keep getting minimized.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
283. ShenValleyFlyFish
6:29 AM EST on December 22, 2007
Vort you do well just a gentle reminder to all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
282. vortfix
11:06 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
McKitrick and Mcintyre are two very vocal skeptics and deniers regarding man-caused temperature rises relating to CO2.
They were the ones that finally disproved the famous "hockey stick" used in the earlier assessment report from the IPCC.
They have been met with solid roadblocks all along the way while trying to gain access to the proxies used in the climate models.
Finally they had to threaten with the freedom of information act to gain access to "some" of the data.
This is one of the main reasons some scientists become so vehement and rabid about the issue.
Not because they are paid by oil companies or any political entity.......but because they and many, many others have research that either disproves what has been presented as factual or they just want to examine the data.
The science involved in the Fourth Assessment report from the IPCC was wrapped up in March, 2005 and the report only recently released.
Before the report was half-finished the science was already outdated and obsolete.
Every week conflicting research is being published related to the subject areas covered in the report.
It's no wonder there are more and more non-believers.
Scientists did not write the report. They only contributed the research. After that it was the writers that came up with the conclusions.
Several scientific contributors have either had their names removed from the final draft or had to threaten a lawsuit to have their name removed because they did not agree with the final!
There are many large reasons for people to question what has been shoved at the public as absolute truth and a free thinking human should take the time to examine all sides of the research to reach an intelligent point of view.
Member Since: October 29, 2007 Posts: 135 Comments: 46068
281. vortfix
10:56 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
Mornin Shen. I always try and include links for further evaluation. Sometimes I forget.
Member Since: October 29, 2007 Posts: 135 Comments: 46068
280. ShenValleyFlyFish
5:46 AM EST on December 22, 2007
Good morning Vort et al:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
279. ShenValleyFlyFish
5:31 AM EST on December 22, 2007
Folks this is one of the better runs on this thread we've had on here. Kudos to all. It would help if references cited were included in posts as allows evaluation and follow up as well as follows established practice in avoiding Plagiarism.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
278. vortfix
10:34 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
Contaminated data
Hot cities, not CO2, cause urban thermometers to rise

Ross McKitrick, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Scientists who attribute warming to greenhouse gases argue that their climate models cannot reproduce the surface trends from natural variability alone. They then attribute it to greenhouse gases, since (they assume) all other human influences have been removed from the data by the adjustment models. If that has not happened, however, they cannot claim to be able to identify the role of greenhouse gases. Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.
How did they handle this issue? In the first draft of the IPCC report, they simply claimed that, while city data are distorted by urban warming, this does not affect the global averages. They cited two familiar studies to support their position and ignored the new counter-evidence. I submitted lengthy comments criticizing this section. In the second draft there was still no discussion, so again I put in lengthy comments. This time the IPCC authors wrote a response. They conceded the evidence of contamination, but in a stunning admission, said: "The locations of socioeconomic development happen to have coincided with maximum warming, not for the reason given by McKitrick and Mihaels [sic] (2004), but because of the strengthening of the Arctic Oscillation and the greater sensitivity of land than ocean to greenhouse forcing, owing to the smaller thermal capacity of land." Note the irony: Confronted with published evidence of an anthropogenic (but non-greenhouse) explanation for warming, they dismissed it with an unproven conjecture of natural causes. Who's the "denialist" now?
Member Since: October 29, 2007 Posts: 135 Comments: 46068
277. KoritheMan
10:13 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
This is a bit off topic, so I apologize. But could the area of convection south of Bermuda organize into a subtropical cyclone over the coming days? I looked at the NAM and GFS runs on here, and the NAM forecasts quite oppressive shear (on the order of about 40 kt), but the GFS forecasts much lighter shear (on the order of 20-30 kt). SSTs are still in the mid to upper 70s in this region, which is warm enough to allow subtropical development to occur. I don't know if any of the models actually develop this system or not (I didn't look at the 850 mb vorticity, just the shear), but it looks to have a fairly decent circulation exposed west of the main thunderstorm activity. Shear is currently high, but if it lowered even 20 knots, is it possible we could have Pablo before January?

It's VERY farfetched to say this though I think, since I doubt this will even come close to developing, but I thought I'd throw it out there. QuikSCAT, unfortunately, missed the system on its latest pass.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 554 Comments: 19923
276. MikeOhio
8:53 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
Just my .02 but....

I think it's typical human arrogance to think something as insignificant as the human population would have so much more of an impact than something as all-encompassing as our very own SUN.

As the sun goes, we go or something like that. Sure we might be causing something like 0.00001% of the Global Warming, but I personally think it has more to do with sun cycles and the like.

Agree or disagree, but I don't think the answers we are looking for exist on Earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
275. moonlightcowboy
6:13 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
The Cult of Global Warming

Hello, BF!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
274. Barefootontherocks
5:51 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
Solstice 15 minutes and counting.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
273. sp34n119w
9:47 PM PST on December 21, 2007
Oh my, oh my. The Oregon Petition surfaces again.
I found numerous sources, via Google, for debunking this particular myth. I think I'll jump on the copy and paste bandwagon - from sourcewatch...

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings.
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release.
In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign,
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.

Okay, copy and paste is boring. Go read it yourself - and, take this with a grain of salt, also. Sourcewatch is written by regular folk and I tried to pick out stuff that had little editorializing, though there is some (all in BOLD is my own editorializing ;)). Still, it's clear from various sources that this guy is not qualified to write the nametags at a climate conference let alone a paper on the effects of GW.
It's really funny to read some of the names that were added to the list by internet. You can still sign the petition, btw. Now you have to print out a form and send it in, stating your qualifications, instead of signing by internet. I'm sure they'll check your credentials so no trying to fool them! (but, if you do, and get a name listed, wumail me so I can see! lol)

Hey, there's plenty of good science being done that calls into question the effect of man on climate change and it will and should continue. Nobody has to resort to promulgating crap like the Oregon Petition to make that point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
272. moonlightcowboy
5:26 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
271. moonlightcowboy
5:21 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
The carrying capacity of an ecosystem is defined as the "maximum population size of a species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future". Biological studies of population change typically demonstrate that once the carrying capacity of an ecosystem is exceeded, a severe crash or collapse of the population follows associated with rapid environmental degradation. An example of the "boom-bust" cycle of population growth is found on St. Matthew Island, Alaska, where 29 reindeer were initially introduced in 1944. The reindeer population grew to 6,000, depleted the resource base, and subsequently declined to fewer than 50 deer by 1964.

...makes you wonder if the planet knows this and is self-correcting?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
270. moonlightcowboy
5:09 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
Recent carrying capacity estimates

The results vary dramatically depending on the methods used and the assumptions made. The variety of methods employed and assumptions made result in a broad range of estimates varying from as low as fewer than one billion people to as high as 1,000 billion.

When one considers the array of factors that must be estimated and the conditions that must be assumed, it is unrealistic to expect a unique figure defining the Earth's human carrying capacity. Professor Joel Cohen in his 1995 book, How Many People can the Earth Support?, summarized estimates of human carrying capacity of the Earth beginning with estimates made as early as the 1600's. His summary is not limited to estimates that are considered socially sustainable as he includes estimates that only consider biophysical parameters. Many studies cited by Cohen give a range of population carrying capacities with a low estimate and a high estimate. In his 1995 Science paper, Cohen computed the median of the high estimates and the median of the low estimates. The result was a range of medians from 7.7 to 12 billion people.

Table 3 summarizes the estimates from Cohen's book that do consider social sustainability as well as estimates from other sources. The estimates vary from 0.5 to 14 billion depending on the metric used and the standard of living and technological improvements that are assumed. The medians of the low and high estimates provide a range from 2.1 to 5.0 billion people. With the current Earth population estimated to be 6.1 billion people, the median range of sustainable carrying capacity estimates suggests that the Earth's population be reduced in order to be sustainable.

Estimating the carrying capacity of the Earth is a difficult task involving value-based decisions and assumptions. Whether the future of the Earth includes a dense population of humans with reduced biodiversity and degraded environmental qualities or a smaller human population living sustainably on a diverse resource base remains to be seen. However, current levels of energy consumption and the impending depletion of non-renewable energy sources point toward the necessity for a change in either population growth or consumption trends if the human race is to survive at anything close to its current level of subsistence.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
4:54 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
3863 hrs 55 min atl/bas/08/sea
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
266. moonlightcowboy
4:54 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
You know I've thought of it before, but I never bothered to look it up - I'm sure there's some formula on record that says how many folks the planet will support. How many and when is the saturation point? Any ideas or links?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
265. Hurricaneblast
4:47 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
(say you tried to count one person per second, would you be able to count them all in your lifteime)?

I know this was not meant to be an actual question but just a point prover...I just had to urge to answer anyways..It would take at least 220 year to do so...but during those year the population would increase and it would most likely take 300 years or more to count the entire human population
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
264. moonlightcowboy
4:47 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
LOL, STL...that'd be a tough one! In a few years if you started counting it would take about 320 years to count us all. Of course by that time you'd have to start counting all over again!

And while man has proved inextricably over and over his ability to wreck his environment, I'm still of the mindset that our climate is regulated mostly by that big ball of fire we see each day and less by the cars we drive.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
262. moonlightcowboy
4:41 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
258. FLWeatherFreak91 4:29 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
...the Earth changes on its own and whoever believes that humans have the power to change the Earth on a scale this massive is far, far to big-headed for his own good.

...yep, own its own with a little help from the Sun, a few more planets and other cosmic variabilities. EXCELLENT POST - right on target!:)

-- JER, when is the skeptic meeting and how is it being hosted? TIA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
261. moonlightcowboy
4:38 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
Hey, TAZ, yes it has gone by quickly! Way too fast! These days it seems I'm aging exponentially!

Taz, before long we'll be cranking up the 2008 hurricane season!

Merry Christmas, Buddy!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
260. moonlightcowboy
4:25 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
...including consideration of their flaws and shortcomings.

Nearly everything the IPCC has brought forth is flawed from their self-proclaimed the "science is in" epilogue to their unscientific collection of surface temp data to even the models themselves which can't predict the weather a week from now much less a century out.

I'm not particularly doubting a warming(or cooling trend), but rather very critical of the IPCC's assessment and methodology. And lastly, the UN has been corrupt since its inception and continues to prove itself completely ineffective.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
259. Tazmanian
8:25 PM PST on December 21, 2007
by the way evere one next week is the last full week of 2007 so dont for get

wow how time flys when where haveing fun where did the year go it when fast
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
258. FLWeatherFreak91
11:21 PM EST on December 21, 2007
It comes down to this with me: I believe that global warming is occurring, but it's not from humans at all. As we all know, ice ages and warm ages have been occurring for ever on the Earth far before the introduction of fossil fuels. The continent of North America has frozen and un-frozen dozens of time. Guys, the Earth changes on its own and whoever believes that humans have the power to change the Earth on a scale this massive is far, far to big-headed for his own good. And, if the water level rises 23 feet, bring it on Mother Earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
257. sebastianjer
11:28 PM EST on December 21, 2007

Personally, I just put people like that (who posted that and other stuff like that, that is) on ignore and forget about them.

That's very open minded, lol
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
256. sebastianjer
11:24 PM EST on December 21, 2007
Fair enough JPritch, hope you look at it all, Merry Christmas
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
254. jpritch
4:16 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
"Fair enough JPritch, do you care to check out the credentials of some of the other so called skeptics, of do you just write them off out of hand?"

I don't really care about petitions much. They're too easy to manipulate. I prefer to look at the actual data that we have, using the analysis tools and models that are available to us, including consideration of their flaws and shortcomings.
Member Since: June 28, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
253. sebastianjer
11:13 PM EST on December 21, 2007
MLC In March they are putting together a meeting of the so called skeptics in New York, it ought to get interesting, lol
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
252. moonlightcowboy
4:06 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
Jer, I believe people are already seeing this "science" as faulty and manipulated for alterior agendas. Hopefully, by the time Copenhagen rolls around in 2009, the UN will be exposed as the graft and corruption body that it is. There's hardly any doubt more wrong doing will come forth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
251. sebastianjer
11:07 PM EST on December 21, 2007
Fair enough JPritch, do you care to check out the credentials of some of the other so called skeptics, of do you just write them off out of hand?
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
250. jpritch
3:59 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
"I'll take it they aren't any of all those Adams with Ph.D. after their name then? , lol"

I'm not sure what ones you're talking about. They put in the kids' names (and the cat, according to them) and made up ridiculous credentials and submitted them. Apparently they were accepted without question. My neighbor does not believe global warming is happening, let alone that is being caused or accelerated by humans. He wanted to believe this was a valid petition, backed by a lot of real scientists, but decided to prove it to me. Turns out they aren't being very careful about who signs, or whether they actually have the credentials they claim.
Member Since: June 28, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
249. sebastianjer
10:55 PM EST on December 21, 2007
Their surname is Adams.

I'll take it they aren't any of all those Adams with Ph.D. after their name then? , lol
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
248. sebastianjer
10:54 PM EST on December 21, 2007
Posted on Ricky's blog earlier today

126. sebastianjer 10:10 AM EST on December 21, 2007
Reid Bryson Speaks Out

Who is Reid Bryson? Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences), identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world, the "father of the science of modern climatology."

Bryson was one of the first climatologists to suggest a connection between human activity and climate change, 40 years ago. At the time, his ideas were laughed at. Bryson wasn't talking about carbon dioxide as a means of changing climate, but rather land use changes. Doctor Bryson doesn't believe CO2 is driving climate change. He believes that the data fed into computer models overemphasizes carbon dioxide and handles water vapor poorly. Is he right? Certainly he's not in line with the "consensus." That's okay. The science of AGW can withstand challenges if it's accurate, and if it's not, it needs to be challenged.

Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
247. jpritch
3:45 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
"Really! What are their names?"

Their surname is Adams. They are from Texas. I won't post the children's names, but they're all boys. They call the cat Royal, or Roi (Roy?), but I have no idea what name they put on the petition for him. I could ask.
Member Since: June 28, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
246. moonlightcowboy
3:49 AM GMT on December 22, 2007
The Petition Project is at least as thorough as the IPCC's so-called "consensus" has been! lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
245. sebastianjer
10:42 PM EST on December 21, 2007

Oh good grief. My neighbor's cat and three children signed that petition, just to see if they'd check. They didn't.

Really! What are their names?
Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197
244. sebastianjer
10:41 PM EST on December 21, 2007
By the way, I have asked this before, I can't find the answer, how many countries decreased CO2 emissions in 2006? If anyone knows or knows where to look I'd appreciate it.

Member Since: August 26, 2005 Posts: 1030 Comments: 11197

Viewing: 294 - 244

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

Top of Page


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