Can Greenland Be Saved?

By: Angela Fritz , 4:36 PM GMT on February 01, 2013

Share this Blog
16
+




Greenland researcher Jason Box speaks with science blogger Chris Mooney in the most recent episode of the Climate Desk. Jason Box has been investigating Greenland ice sheet sensitivity to weather and climate as part of 23 expeditions to Greenland since 1994. His time camping on the inland ice exceeds 1 year. Year 2012 brought a deeper level of insight as the scientific perspective shifts to examine the interactions ice with atmospheric and ocean systems, including the role of fire in darkening the cryosphere.

In 2012, Greenland experienced unprecedented warmth and melting across 97% of its area. The Greenland ice sheet covers roughly 85% of the land surface of the island and rises to an average height of 1.6 miles. The immense weight of the ice sheet has pushed the center of the island roughly 1000 ft below sea level. The icy expanse of Greenland, like the rest of the Arctic, not only represents an important climatological indicator, it also is critical to future global climate. Were all of Greenland's ice to melt, global sea level would rise 23 feet. Greenland's ice sheet is slowly melting due to warming temperatures, and there is great concern that this melting will accelerate and contribute to sea level rise of several feet later this century.

Angela

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: 21 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

21. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
9:43 PM GMT on February 05, 2013
Quoting Xulonn:
I'll check in here periodically, but when you have climate posts like this, would you announce it at Dr. Rood's blog? It would probably bring many more readers and a few posters to your blog.


I can do that, I hope I remember! We'll see if we can set something up that's a little more automatic.

You can also keep up to date on all climate-related posts on this page:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/climateblogs. asp
20. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
9:41 PM GMT on February 05, 2013
angelafritz has created a new entry.
19. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:15 AM GMT on February 05, 2013
Quoting shenandoah:
Although I believe you have it all backwards as to whom is trying to convert whom. I would wish you luck in your endeavor if you weren't helping to destroy the economy, cause massive unemployment and hunger and taking away our freedom to travel by limiting the use of fossil fuels, of which there are plenty, without replacing them with anything really useful. By the way, what is your plan to reverse the process of climate change or global warming? Do you really have one, outside of of having us suffer now to enjoy life 100 years from now. I applaud the efforts of scientists measuring temperatures and watching glaciers melt but what you are telling us to do to resolve this problem is a little like watching a hurricane and telling us we will all have to cool the oceans by throwing in ice cubes to prevent them. I would like to know how you intend to stop animals from breathing and expelling carbon dioxide, which is so dangerous (there are millions of us idiotic animals) and why you think that this and not using fossil fuels will save the earth which is an inanimate rock that doesn't need saving and will be around a lot longer then any of us. Cooling and warming even though we are not here to cause it. I also resent you telling people to give up their comfortable lifestyles to save future generations from something that you believe will happen and might not, just because you say so, and have the nerve to call people who don't agree with you idiots and keep repeating the charge to make yourselves feel superior to others who "just don't get it". Everything you claim global warming will cause in the future is just a theory and guess work being promoted by your statistics, which can and have been skewed (if you read any scientific evidence besides your own) to reach a self fulfilled prophecy and a predetermined conclusion and then presented as undisputed fact (again because you say so). Very unscientific. Yes the earth's temperatures may be rising but there is no evidence whatsoever that human beings are the primary cause. Or that they could stop it if they wanted to. You would have civilization go back to the time when people lived to be 40, worked from dawn to dusk and never had time to get any enjoyment out of life just to satisfy the new scientific religion (which is what it really is). Discussing this with you is like trying convince the clergy that there is no God. It is said that a butterfly flapping it's wings can cause the weather to change. Do you intend to kill all the butterflies? Take care and may the force be with you.


I am not certain as to who you addressed your comments to, but I will respond to it.

"I would wish you luck in your endeavor if you weren't helping to destroy the economy, cause massive unemployment and hunger and taking away our freedom to travel by limiting the use of fossil fuels, of which there are plenty, without replacing them with anything really useful."

The only "endeavor" that I am pursuing here is to try to prevent all of your fears about the future from coming true. What do you think will happen to the economy when ever rising fossil fuel costs begin to crush the economy again? As they are doing now. The fossil fuel industries controls the economy now through their pricing. Their pricing is determined, in large part, by the diminishing quantities of fossil fuels that are still available. The greater expense to recover fossil fuels because the low hanging fruit has long been picked and it is more expensive to recover what is left. The return on energy investment is showing signs of collapse since so much energy is expended to recover the harder to reach and less energy efficient fossil fuels being recovered today. What kills the economy faster than rapidly rising costs at the pump? What happened just a few months before the U.S. housing market crash? An argument can easily be made that consumers already financially stretched to the limits where shoved over the edge by the price at the pump nearly doubling in just a very few, short months.
As far as massive unemployment goes, what will happen as pump prices become so expensive that employers do not have enough operating capital left to hire new employees, or to even retain the ones they have?
Hunger will assuredly come as crops begin to fail more frequently from droughts and floods that become more frequent and enduring as the climate warms and changes the regional climates where crops are grown now? What was the primary reason for the Arab uprisings that lead to the collapse of the Egyptian and Libyan governments? The primary reason was the Russian drought that forced Russia to halt its export of wheat and lead to the near doubling of the staple food prices in these countries.
Our freedom to travel by the limiting the use of fossil fuels? LMAO! What happens to travel now every time there is a big spike in the price at the pump?!? What happens to airline ticket prices every time their fuel costs go up and remain high for any period of time?!? Fossil fuels are self restricting in our "freedom" to travel. Are you so blinded by your own ideologies that you cannot even see what is staring you in your face now?
The whole idea is to replace our needs for fossil fuels ASAP before there are not enough cost effective fossil fuels left to use. You want us to deplete them and then worry later as to what we use as an energy source. This is a very short sighted position to cling to.

"By the way, what is your plan to reverse the process of climate change or global warming?"

My plan, at this time, is severely limited. Why? Simply because there are enough denial industry puppets, such as yourself, that spend all of their energy trying to ensure that no one can do anything about it! Unfortunately, the first task to be accomplished is to move aside all of the short sighted, narrow minded, self indulgent, paranoid, conspiracy believing, science illiterate idiots that think that the AGWT was designed to strip everyone of their freedoms and to come under the rule of communist loving liberals that have nothing better to do than to annoy the Hell out of you and the rest of the denial industry puppets!

"I applaud the efforts of scientists measuring temperatures and watching glaciers melt but what you are telling us to do to resolve this problem is a little like watching a hurricane and telling us we will all have to cool the oceans by throwing in ice cubes to prevent them."

What I suspect that you applaud is that you relish the fact that the scientist have so far been unsuccessful in shutting down the denial industry puppets, even with all of the data that supports the science at their disposal.

"I would like to know how you intend to stop animals from breathing and expelling carbon dioxide, which is so dangerous (there are millions of us idiotic animals) and why you think that this and not using fossil fuels will save the earth which is an inanimate rock that doesn't need saving and will be around a lot longer then any of us."

All of the animals breathing out CO2 into the atmosphere does not amount to anywhere near the amount of CO2 that the burning of fossil fuels puts into the atmosphere. You are making a straw man argument with this and it does not serve your intellect very well. Earth is an inanimate rock. The only inanimate rock that we know of that supports life as we know it. The idea is not to save Earth as much as it is to preserve all of the life that this inanimate rock supports.

"Cooling and warming even though we are not here to cause it."

Just because Earth has gone through climate changes before our arrival and will continue to do so long after our departure does not exonerate us from the impacts that we having now towards our climate. This does not excuse me and this does not excuse you, or anyone else for our contributions toward the present climate change that is happening.

"I also resent you telling people to give up their comfortable lifestyles to save future generations from something that you believe will happen and might not, just because you say so, and have the nerve to call people who don't agree with you idiots and keep repeating the charge to make yourselves feel superior to others who "just don't get it"."

What??? A "comfortable lifestyle" is extremely subjective. I may find living in a 40,000 sq.' is required for me believe that I have a comfortable lifestyle and you may believe that living in a tent is what is a comfortable lifestyle. I did not ask to give up anything other than your self serving, unreasoned and irresponsible thoughts.

"Everything you claim global warming will cause in the future is just a theory and guess work being promoted by your statistics, which can and have been skewed (if you read any scientific evidence besides your own) to reach a self fulfilled prophecy and a predetermined conclusion and then presented as undisputed fact (again because you say so)."

First off, I never claimed what global warming will cause. The Laws of Physics, the Laws of Chemistry and the Laws of Thermodynamics make these claims.
Second, the AGWT is a theory and it is, by far, the best theory to explain the observations.
Third, it is not my scientific evidence. I am not a scientist. The theory of the AGWT was introduced long before my time. Along with the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics. I had no play, sadly, in the science behind any of these.
Fourth, I do not say so, science says so. I understand the science and, if you do as well, you chose to ignore it.

"Very unscientific."

I am still waiting for you to introduce any scientific evidence that would support your opinions.

"Yes the earth's temperatures may be rising but there is no evidence whatsoever that human beings are the primary cause."

I feel as though I am talking with Rip Van Winkle just as he has awakened from his nap. Did you sleep well?

"You would have civilization go back to the time when people lived to be 40, worked from dawn to dusk and never had time to get any enjoyment out of life just to satisfy the new scientific religion (which is what it really is)"

I suggest that this is exactly what you are doing by ignoring the difficulty that survival itself will become for those forced to deal with the adaptations that a warming climate will bring to them.

"Discussing this with you is like trying convince the clergy that there is no God."

I know that I will suffer OldLeatherneck's opinion of me, but I am not smart enough to work with the real intellectuals here. I am left to play with the idiots that will chance along here. .... sigh

"It is said that a butterfly flapping it's wings can cause the weather to change. Do you intend to kill all the butterflies?"

Well, there's your problem! You still confuse weather for climate! Quit being so hard on the butterflies in Africa. Hint: It's not their fault.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
18. OldLeatherneck
10:47 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
Quoting wizodd:
Would you rather be prepared for a sea level rise which might occur in 15 years and have it fail to occur, or would you rather assume that you have 90 years, only to discover that in a single 2-5 year period over the next 20 years we suffer a 5m rise in sea level with the associate disasters along all of our coastal areas?


While I agree that planners should begin looking at "worst-case" scenarios, I can not foresee a 1m sea-level rise in the next 10-12 years.

Just some back-of-the-envelope math shows that if the mass loss from Greenland were to increase at the alarming rate of 20%/year and the combined loss from mountain glaciers and Antarctica increased at a slower rate of 2%/year it would still be 2044 before sea-level was raised 1 meter. However, at that rate, it would only take 6 more years to reach 3 meters by 2050.

Therefore we need to watch what happens to the Greenland Ice Sheet as the Arctic Ocean loses it's ice and the waters surrounding Greenland become warmer and ice-free year round. While I don't think it will be as bad as you calculated, their are some informed opinions that project a faster rate of loss than my simple projections.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
17. wizodd
10:01 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
The one disturbing constant to the climate reporting over the past 15 ears has been the phrase '...scientists were surprised at how much more rapidly change is occurring than expected.'

A conservative scientist, predicting potential disasters of this magnitude, OUGHT to be erring on the side of events occurring faster than expected, thus, at least most of the time, conservative scientists ought to be heard say that '...things are proceeding slower than expected.'

That the annual statements are precisely the opposite of this conservative approach indicates that scientists are vastly underestimating the rate at which the rate of change is changing.

15 years ago pessimists were saying 1 m sea level rise by 2100. 2 years ago 'experts' in the UK cautiously state that 1m by 2050, or perhaps earlier, might be expected.

To date, the vast majority of ice melt on the planet has been sea ice, with a zero net effect upon sea levels, the rapid melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (which has lost an estimated 1/3 to 1/2 of it's mass during each previous warm period,) has been the major influence on sea levels (land based ice masses have contributed far far less volume, though for humans they represent a huge loss of potable water.)

My own analysis indicates that we could suffer a 1 m sea level rise as soon as this current year, or over the next 12 years, but I expect us to have a raise of up to 10 m by 2025-2030 because such rises are nonlinear and will rapidly increase as the sea ice vanishes and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice masses move into the sea as melt and as solid ice.

Question.
Would you rather be prepared for a sea level rise which might occur in 15 years and have it fail to occur, or would you rather assume that you have 90 years, only to discover that in a single 2-5 year period over the next 20 years we suffer a 5m rise in sea level with the associate disasters along all of our coastal areas?
Member Since: March 31, 2003 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
16. JohnLonergan
9:25 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
message deleted by poster
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2754
15. yoboi
9:21 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Rookie,

As always, I admire your patience and tolerance when dealing with the bizarre and at time idiotic claims of the denialists. Yet, you seem to have a way of introducing them to the facts regarding the science. Unfortunately, many of them have no desire to learn.
Between yourself, ARiot and 1911maker I believe you have addressed all of the scientific misinformation that Shenandoah was trying to express.

I'd like to address Shenandoah's idiotic claim that those of us who believe in the scientific certainty of AGW/CC are somehow involved in a global conspiracy to create a world government. What utter nonsense! There is a great difference between global cooperation to solve a potentially catastrophic problem that will affect every nation on earth and any desire to create a single governmental structure.

It seems that individuals that spend too much time listening to Glenn Beck are suffering from some severe paranoid delusions.

To address the seriousness of AGW/CC we need to take drastic action within the next 5-10 years, if not tomorrow, on a global scale. We can't wait the 100-150 years of global warfare it would take to create a one-world government...even if such an unweildy creation were desirable.



glad you say that it's not for sure to be bad....thanks for being honest...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 6 Comments: 1989
14. shenandoah
8:47 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
Although I believe you have it all backwards as to whom is trying to convert whom. I would wish you luck in your endeavor if you weren't helping to destroy the economy, cause massive unemployment and hunger and taking away our freedom to travel by limiting the use of fossil fuels, of which there are plenty, without replacing them with anything really useful. By the way, what is your plan to reverse the process of climate change or global warming? Do you really have one, outside of of having us suffer now to enjoy life 100 years from now. I applaud the efforts of scientists measuring temperatures and watching glaciers melt but what you are telling us to do to resolve this problem is a little like watching a hurricane and telling us we will all have to cool the oceans by throwing in ice cubes to prevent them. I would like to know how you intend to stop animals from breathing and expelling carbon dioxide, which is so dangerous (there are millions of us idiotic animals) and why you think that this and not using fossil fuels will save the earth which is an inanimate rock that doesn't need saving and will be around a lot longer then any of us. Cooling and warming even though we are not here to cause it. I also resent you telling people to give up their comfortable lifestyles to save future generations from something that you believe will happen and might not, just because you say so, and have the nerve to call people who don't agree with you idiots and keep repeating the charge to make yourselves feel superior to others who "just don't get it". Everything you claim global warming will cause in the future is just a theory and guess work being promoted by your statistics, which can and have been skewed (if you read any scientific evidence besides your own) to reach a self fulfilled prophecy and a predetermined conclusion and then presented as undisputed fact (again because you say so). Very unscientific. Yes the earth's temperatures may be rising but there is no evidence whatsoever that human beings are the primary cause. Or that they could stop it if they wanted to. You would have civilization go back to the time when people lived to be 40, worked from dawn to dusk and never had time to get any enjoyment out of life just to satisfy the new scientific religion (which is what it really is). Discussing this with you is like trying convince the clergy that there is no God. It is said that a butterfly flapping it's wings can cause the weather to change. Do you intend to kill all the butterflies? Take care and may the force be with you.
Member Since: December 17, 2003 Posts: 0 Comments: 4
13. OldLeatherneck
8:45 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Steve,

I agree that you should not have been called an idiot and with no explanation as to why you are an idiot...........You are entitled to your opinions. You are entitled to express your opinions. What you have no rights to is to express your opinions as facts.


Rookie,

As always, I admire your patience and tolerance when dealing with the bizarre and at time idiotic claims of the denialists. Yet, you seem to have a way of introducing them to the facts regarding the science. Unfortunately, many of them have no desire to learn.
Between yourself, ARiot and 1911maker I believe you have addressed all of the scientific misinformation that Shenandoah was trying to express.

I'd like to address Shenandoah's idiotic claim that those of us who believe in the scientific certainty of AGW/CC are somehow involved in a global conspiracy to create a world government. What utter nonsense! There is a great difference between global cooperation to solve a potentially catastrophic problem that will affect every nation on earth and any desire to create a single governmental structure.

It seems that individuals that spend too much time listening to Glenn Beck are suffering from some severe paranoid delusions.

To address the seriousness of AGW/CC we need to take drastic action within the next 5-10 years, if not tomorrow, on a global scale. We can't wait the 100-150 years of global warfare it would take to create a one-world government...even if such an unweildy creation were desirable.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
12. 1911maker
7:46 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
Steve, leaving out all of your comments other then the part about natural cycles, please explain the graph below, and how the oceans are getting more acidic with out man being involved.

You resented being labeled as an idiot, you have the opportunity to elaborate on this single "thing" and demonstrate that you are not an idiot.



Link

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, rivers and lakes.[2][3] To maintain chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing the ocean's "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[5][6]
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
11. ARiot
7:38 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
Quoting shenandoah:


Snip. "There are so many forces at work that cause global warming and cooling.." Snip.




Exactly! You've just accepted AGW theory.

In the past, the climate was stable, reacting to inputs as any climate system does. Thousands and hundreds of thousands of years ticked by with a mind-numbingly boring climate until some climate force created observable changes. Some changes were "rapid" in geological time, taking place over thousands of years. Shocking the various ecosystems.

Now man's activity is a significant force at work, changing the climate, and those changes are observable and well documented to have happened at mind-blowing speed on a geological scale.

See. It's helps you to talk things out.
Member Since: June 24, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 366
10. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:29 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
Quoting shenandoah:
oregonbirdofprey stated:

"Idiot"

I'm very sorry for stating my opinion which you evidently disagree with very strongly. But I'm shocked that a member of the new religion of the Scientific Church of Man Made Global Warming would use such despicable language. How do your hope to convert all the stupid people of the world such as me to become a member of your new religion by being so mean and hateful. I will try and repent in the future and become one of the sheep. Thanks for your help.

Best regards,

Steve


Steve,

I agree that you should not have been called an idiot and with no explanation as to why you are an idiot.

First, judging by your post, you did not wish to be a convert to anything. Rather, you only wished to come in here and convert others to your unreasoned thoughts and pointless claims. Should you actually believe that CO2 is not a pollutant then I suggest that you take your favorite pet and set it inside a sealed enclosure. Please ensure that your pet has all that it needs to comfortably survive and prosper. Now, slowly, introduce more CO2 into your pet's environment and note the amount of CO2, in ppm, that is present when your pet begins to show signs of distress. Continue your experiment of increasing the amount of CO2 and note the level of CO2 that was present when your pet died. Post the results of your study here.

You are correct when you state that man cannot force Nature to man's will. Nature will correct the situation, even if Nature has to eliminate man in the process.

When you believe, from some yet as undetermined faith, that man is incapable of altering the environment then I must suggest that any such claim by you is from your failure to pay attention to ANYTHING in Nature.

Earth's climate has changed in the past. The climate has gotten colder and it has gotten hotter. This was all done within The Laws of Physics. When man dumps tons/day of CO2 in the atmosphere it is done so within the constraints of these same Laws of Physics. Just because you do not desire for it to be or do not understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that man's activities have laid to waste to some of Nature's natural carbon sinks does NOT alter The Laws of Physics.

You are entitled to your opinions. You are entitled to express your opinions. What you have no rights to is to express your opinions as facts.

What makes you an idiot is that you fail to look at anything that is contradictory to your preconceived notions as to how the World, nay, the Universe, works. .... Either that or you are just another denial industry puppet and even this makes you an idiot.

Does this satisfy your desire to know why you have been called an idiot? ...... Just out of my personal curiosity, is the first time that anyone has ever called you an idiot?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
9. shenandoah
1:06 PM GMT on February 04, 2013
oregonbirdofprey stated:

"Idiot"

I'm very sorry for stating my opinion which you evidently disagree with very strongly. But I'm shocked that a member of the new religion of the Scientific Church of Man Made Global Warming would use such despicable language. How do your hope to convert all the stupid people of the world such as me to become a member of your new religion by being so mean and hateful. I will try and repent in the future and become one of the sheep. Thanks for your help.

Best regards,

Steve
Member Since: December 17, 2003 Posts: 0 Comments: 4
8. pottery
1:49 AM GMT on February 04, 2013
Thank you Angela.
Excellent stuff.

Keep the information coming.
Every day, more and more people learn the Truth.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 23080
7. oregonbirdofprey
4:00 PM GMT on February 03, 2013
"I guess if you frighten enough people they will be more amenable to a one world government which seems to be the goal of the "global warming" or "climate change" people."

Idiot
Member Since: September 26, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 946
6. shenandoah
2:41 PM GMT on February 03, 2013
Exactly what do you "man made global warming people" plan to do about it? Man cannot force nature to its will. The earth does not contain a thermostat that you can control the temperature with. To say that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is the most ridiculous thing ever foisted on the public. If we got rid of all the carbon dioxide in the air all the vegetation on earth would die and then humans. The only thing that would remain is the earth getting warmer and colder according to nature's whim. There are so many forces at work that cause global warming and cooling that we had better adapt to it rather than plan on changing the course mother nature is taking. I guess if you frighten enough people they will be more amenable to a one world government which seems to be the goal of the "global warming" or "climate change" people. The temperature of the earth has gone up and down forever and will continue to do so regardless of man's pitiful efforts to interfere with the inevitable.
Member Since: December 17, 2003 Posts: 0 Comments: 4
5. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
9:22 PM GMT on February 02, 2013
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52262
4. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
9:17 PM GMT on February 02, 2013
this coming summer will be faster and faster then the summer before when it comes to ice melt

Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52262
3. OldLeatherneck
6:29 PM GMT on February 02, 2013
Thanks Angela for posting this. I've been following Dr. Box's activities and posts on his blog meltfactor.org for the past year or so. He is one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world when it comes to the demise of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

I have personal memories of working in Thule, Greenland in the mid-70s, when it was a much different place in regards to climatology. I have fond memories of having the honor of riding, on a dog sledge, with one of the local Inuits (A.K.A. Eskimos in that era) from their village to the site of the annual Greenlandic Dog-Sledge races which were held on the frozen bay between Thule and Dundas Island.

We now know that the annual mass loss on Greenland is 3 times what it was in the 90s. I shudder to think how much ice will be lost annually when the Arctic Ocean is ice-free perennially, which may occur within my lifetime.....and I'm already in my "Golden Years."
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
2. Daisyworld
5:22 PM GMT on February 02, 2013
Thanks for posting that, Angela. It was very informative, as well as ominous. I keep wondering if the melting of Greenland will result in another Heinrich event.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 786
1. Xulonn
4:02 PM GMT on February 02, 2013
Excellent blog entry with superb video! Thanks Angela! The information in the video will help in our continuing battle with the pack of denialists that regularly invades Dr. Rood's blog and reduces that blog's usefulness as a place to discuss the science of climate change.

I'll check in here periodically, but when you have climate posts like this, would you announce it at Dr. Rood's blog? It would probably bring many more readers and a few posters to your blog. I'll announce this entry there right now with a comment. Unfortunately, it might also bring the denialist pack over, but that is an unfortunate reality with which we have to learn to live.

David van Harn, a.k.a. Xulonn

Retiree from northern California now living as an expat near the Palmira WU weather station in Boquete, Chiriqui Province, Panama
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1139

Viewing: 21 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About angelafritz

Atmospheric Scientist here at Weather Underground, with serious nerd love for tropical cyclones and climate change. Twitter: @WunderAngela