Thread: Greenland Melting at Record Rates !! - In 1930

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...acier_retreat/

This reminds me of my trip to Glacier National Park. The main glaciers there have also been poster child for the alarmists (they are disappearing and its is all man's fault !!)

Well at the overlook the NPS set up a little display showing indeed that the glacier is retreating. The inconvenient truth that the alarmists leave out (that the park service DID show) was that it has been retreating since at least the first white man's exploration sometime in the 1800's.....

Dam those Indians and all their camp fires destroying the planet that long ago....!!

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...acier_retreat/

This reminds me of my trip to Glacier National Park. The main glaciers there have also been poster child for the alarmists (they are disappearing and its is all man's fault !!)

Well at the overlook the NPS set up a little display showing indeed that the glacier is retreating. The inconvenient truth that the alarmists leave out (that the park service DID show) was that it has been retreating since at least the first white man's exploration sometime in the 1800's.....

Dam those Indians and all their camp fires destroying the planet that long ago....!!

This is nothing more than another example of denier "cherry-picking" -- here's why:


It is not news that Greenland went through a "warm spell" back in the 1930's. Scientists have known that, well, since the 1930's. But the big difference between the warming then and the warming now is that the 1930's warming was limited to a small fraction of the planet, while the current warming is global in scope.

Here are two plots that illustrate this point.

This one shows a global temperature anomaly map for the 1930's:



Note how the warming was confined to a few isolated regions (one of them encompassing Greenland).

Now compare the above plot with this one -- a global temperature anomaly map for the 2000's:



No honest person would even attempt to argue that the 1930's warming (which was limited to a few isolated regions) was in any way comparable to the *global*-scale warming the planet is now experiencing.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...acier_retreat/

This reminds me of my trip to Glacier National Park. The main glaciers there have also been poster child for the alarmists (they are disappearing and its is all man's fault !!)

Well at the overlook the NPS set up a little display showing indeed that the glacier is retreating. The inconvenient truth that the alarmists leave out (that the park service DID show) was that it has been retreating since at least the first white man's exploration sometime in the 1800's.....

Dam those Indians and all their camp fires destroying the planet that long ago....!!

Mm, yep, still getting out of the last ice age. I expect there'll be mass extinctions and all that, and then eventually another ice age will hit the planet. Yay.

Originally Posted by caerbannog

This is nothing more than another example of denier "cherry-picking" -- here's why:


It is not news that Greenland went through a "warm spell" back in the 1930's. Scientists have known that, well, since the 1930's. But the big difference between the warming then and the warming now is that the 1930's warming was limited to a small fraction of the planet, while the current warming is global in scope.

Here are two plots that illustrate this point.

This one shows a global temperature anomaly map for the 1930's:



Note how the warming was confined to a few isolated regions (one of them encompassing Greenland).

Now compare the above plot with this one -- a global temperature anomaly map for the 2000's:



No honest person would even attempt to argue that the 1930's warming (which was limited to a few isolated regions) was in any way comparable to the *global*-scale warming the planet is now experiencing.

while the current warming is global in scope. Antarctic ice is increasing.....global??

the 1930's warming (which was limited to a few isolated regions) evidence?? Do you have satellite data from the 30's ???

You alarmist cherry pick all the time. You point to Greenland and scream the world is ending and ignore Antarctica.....and all the other glaciers around the world that are growing or stable...

Besides that is not my issue, mine, like the poster above, is that even IF it is warming (I would not be surprised that it is) it is perfectly natural and expected....(look up "interglacial")

The US Navy Sub Skate discovers the North Pole has melted !! Alarmist were right !!

uss-skate-open-water.jpg

Woops.....1958

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/2...-not-so-thick/

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

The US Navy Sub Skate discovers the North Pole has melted !! Alarmist were right !!

uss-skate-open-water.jpg

Woops.....1958

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/2...-not-so-thick/

Looks like watts is up to his lies again.
The image was not from March 1959 as the caption on watts site states, but from August 1958. And the North Pole was not "ice free". And Commander James Calvert found a hole in the ice.
From Navalhistory.org

USS Skate (SSN-578 ) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.

Calvert ordered the ballast tanks blown. The roar of high pressure air seemed earsplitting after the tense silence of the last few minutes. Upon surfacing, Calvert ordered the hatch opened, then climbed up to the bridge. The sky was slightly overcast and the damp air felt like an unseasonably warm February day in New England, with the temperature hovering near freezing. The submarine’s black hull stood out in stark relief against the deep blue of the calm lake in which the ship now floated. Beyond the lake, stretching to the horizon in every direction, was the stark white of the permanent polar ice pack. The officer who had climbed to the bridge with Calvert called the skipper’s attention to the port side of the ship. There a full grown polar bear was climbing slowly out of the water and up onto the ice.

"Woops"

Originally Posted by MannieD

Looks like watts is up to his lies again.
The image was not from March 1959 as the caption on watts site states, but from August 1958. And the North Pole was not "ice free". And Commander James Calvert found a hole in the ice.
From Navalhistory.org





"Woops"

My point is that ice goes and comes, long before the recent CO2 increases and before AGW became fashionable among communists ...what is yours? That the article is off by 1 year or the definition of ice free verses "ice thin".

Try making meaningful rebuttals.......

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

My point is that ice goes and comes, long before the recent CO2 increases and before AGW became fashionable among communists ...what is yours? That the article is off by 1 year or the definition of ice free verses "ice thin".

Try making meaningful rebuttals.......

My point is that watts' site lies and is useless for any relevant information. My point is that a hole in the ice does not equal "ice free". (BTW 60 feet thick ice is not "ice thin" "When the top of the periscope came within sixty feet of the surface, he spotted heavy ice to the side.").
And the article is not off by a year; it is off by 7 months. The article makes it seem like the arctic was ice free in March.

Try making meaningful claims instead of the same old strawman arguments. Any one with more than 2 brain cells acknowledges that "ice comes and goes" and "climate has changed in the past". A hole in the ice is not evidence of ice coming and going. A hole in the ice is not evidence that the trend in arctic sea ice has not been declining for 30+ years. A hole in the ice is not evidence that the area of sea ice was less in the 1950s.

I notice you ignored caerbannog's post.

And as to a rebuttal of your OP try this:
The Register? You would be better off going to a palm reader.

Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record

Hippies get it wrong again
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Science, 11th April 2012 09:18 GMT
Free whitepaper – Enabling Datacenter and Cloud Service Management for Mid-Tier Enterprises
The amount of floating ice in the Arctic's Bering Sea - which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace - reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites.

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center announced last week that ice extent in the Bering for the month of March has now been collated and compared, and is the highest seen since records began. The NSIDC boffins said in a statement:

source
What the NSIDC actually wrote:

Ice extent this March ranked ninth lowest out of the 34 years of satellite data for the month, but it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade.

source

What your source conveniently left out from the original paper was

Widespread retreat of glaciers has been observed along the southeastern margin of Greenland

and

We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.

So 2 denier article lying to their readers. But then again, the only way the deniers can convince anyone is with lies and misinformation.

Measuring GW involves a lot more than just looking at where ice is melting, and I expect that the more serious climatologists studying it have facepalm moments when some idiot blabs about ice melting as a sign of GW in some news report/article, because even we laity know that the ice in question will probably be back eventually. GW involves a lot more, such as albedo, mean global temps and how much energy the oceans are absorbing, and so on.

Originally Posted by Durandal

Measuring GW involves a lot more than just looking at where ice is melting, and I expect that the more serious climatologists studying it have facepalm moments when some idiot blabs about ice melting as a sign of GW in some news report/article, because even we laity know that the ice in question will probably be back eventually. GW involves a lot more, such as albedo, mean global temps and how much energy the oceans are absorbing, and so on.

Yup. And all the evidence, melting ice, OHC, mean global temps, etc, is suggesting that the earth system is getting warmer and humans are responsible for the sudden and extreme warming. That is the difference between now and the 1930s. That is why a portion of Greenland melting faster in the 1930s is not comparable to what is happening worldwide today.