Greenland Melting at Record Rates !! - In 1930

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Elmer Fudd, Jun 4, 2012.

  1. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s_greenland_glacier_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....!!:wink:
     
  2. caerbannog

    caerbannog Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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:

    [​IMG]

    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:

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  3. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  4. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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")
     
  5. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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"
     
  7. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.......
     
  8. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:
    [FONT=&amp]The Register? You would be better off going to a palm reader.
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&amp]source[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
    What the NSIDC actually wrote:
    [/FONT][FONT=&amp]source[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

    What your source conveniently[/FONT][FONT=&amp] left out from the original paper was[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
    and
    So 2 denier article lying to their readers. [/FONT]But then again, the only way the deniers can convince anyone is with lies and misinformation.
     
  9. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  10. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and humans are responsible for the sudden and extreme warming.

    There have been thousands (millions??) of "sudden and extreme" temperature changes in the past long before humans. You (alarmists) are making a huge assumption to feed your psychological need for a doomsday scenario and/or you political agenda....that has become so obvious in the last few years even the die-hards are abandoning this scam.

    Try looking into close earth asteroids next......
     
  12. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since you continue to rebutt something other than my point the only thing you posted worthy of response it:

    I notice you ignored caerbannog's post.

    You should look again.....
     
  13. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No honest person can deny that the glaciers which once covered New York City are no longer there. "Now experiencing" encompassing the past 20,000 years apparently? Can someone tell me when the first coal fired power plant started up? Was it before or after the glaciers retreated from New York City?
     
  14. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you show me a temperature change that was as extreme as the one of the last 150 years? Can you show me where any one suggests that just because humans are responsible for the current temp change they must be responsible for all changes in the last 4 bilion years?

    So [FONT=&amp]"What your source conveniently[/FONT] left out from the original paper was[FONT=&amp] "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. "
    " does not rebutt (sic) your thread title, "Greenland Melting at Record Rates !! - In 1930" ?

    [/FONT]Why should I rebutt (sic) your claim that "ice comes and goes" when I stated I agree with it. Only problem is that the statement is irrelevant because you have not provided any evidence that the ice was gone int the 1950s.

    Yes.that is the only statement you have made that is true.
     
  15. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Can you show me the global temperature data taken from thermometers prior to the past 150 years? The amount of "normal" variability at the year/decade/century level is EXACTLY the sort of information which isn't available since, say, the beginning of the earths current ice cube form and up until 150 years ago. But it does seem reasonable that the more likely direction for an ice cube configuration is to get warmer...just as it has gotten warmer before, and certainly predating the last 150 years. If the modelers could actually explain the past warming (and cooling) events in any kind of consistent manner, maybe it would be easier to believe their current projections? Backcasting ones model is one of those "science" things which some morons declared was "settled", proving that they know nothing about it in the process.
     
  16. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look up the word "proxy".
     
  17. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Historical proxies are not capable of measuring the daily global temperature. Which makes it impossible to claim that the variability seen in todays temperatures is any different than that seen in the past, at the level of resolution measured by satellites and ground based measuring stations.

    But that doesn't stop people from PRETENDING that a century+ of data allows them to make ridiculous statements covering the history of mankind's portion of the planets CO2 emissions, let alone what the planet is capable of all by itself, prior to the invention of, say, agriculture.
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Does not matter what the numbers say

    Because if the environment is showing effects of increased temperature - then that is the most accurate of all temperature indicators. We have multiple upon multiple studies showing that there is a change in the biosphere of the planet in relation to changing temperatures

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/index.htm
    http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/
    http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/5-deadliest-effects-of-global-warming/276?image=1
     
  19. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now you can look up the definition of "climate". When you understand the words "proxy" and "climate" we can continue the discussion.

    Good point, Bowerbird
     
  20. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you show me a temperature change that was as extreme as the one of the last 150 years?

    You can...google paleoclimate changes yourself and you will see variations of many tens of degrees, not a few hundredths...as I have said many times I shall not waste my time with your remedial science education.

    "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. "

    Which says glaciers have been retreating long before SUV's were popular, and your AGW claims are foolish....does it not??

    Only problem is that the statement is irrelevant because you have not provided any evidence that the ice was gone int the 1950s.

    I showed a picture of open water in the 1950's...
    Are you aware that the northwest passage was made in 1903 ??

    Do you know what the northwest passage is???

    The real cause of AGW:
    http://www.livescience.com/14179-doomsday-psychology-21-judgment-day-apocalypse.html
     
  21. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Well, some might take that position, but I think that numbers do matter. As does the geologic evidence of past geologic evidence of cooling and warming cycles, prior to the invention of all the items that current warming (or cooling) episodes can possibly be blamed on.

    An indicator, sure, but hardly "accurate", and of what? The environment has been showing warming because of natural variability prior to your birth, the construction of the pyramids and mankind's invention of the wheel. The debate appears to center on how much of any current climate trend can be blamed on humans, versus all the other factors which caused past episodes of warming.

    Of course. But they aren't required, because a single picture showing the presence of the glacial sheets in central park is good enough. Sugar Loaf rock in Staten Island is good enough for me. All this other bru-haha is a different question.

    wisconsin_lg.jpg
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    ((((((((((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))))))))))))))
    Didn't read my links did you? And by the looks of it did not really "get" my point - and that could have been my fault. So, I will try again.

    Man can put whatever artificial numbers he likes or dislikes on global warming - but the real evidence is there in nature for all to see. Not only in retreating glaciers world wide

    ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...ure-world-glacier-melting/UPI-76571328740495/

    But in the changing ecology of the planet - an nowhere is this more visible than in alpine habitats
    http://connectivityconservation.org/downloads/FactSheets/Climate change impacts in mountains 1.pdf

    It is difficult to see how alpine biomes can be part of the "great global warming conspiracy" than some would suggest is behind the science of climate change

    As for the latest idiocy of "of course the climate has changed before" well DUH!! Yes it has. But find me a fossil record that shows change as rapid as what we are currently experiencing and I am betting that record will coincide with an extinction event - not a pleasant thing to have to live through.

    But climate change is not really about losing an alpine frog or even a forest - it is about the impact on the agricultural sector. With climate change we are in for "droughts and flooding rains" which are predicted to be MORE severe than what we have been experiencing. Given that a huge proportion of my state went under water last year - and more was flood affected, and this after 10 years of the most severe recorded drought in history - well, the farmers are worried, and if you value the ability to put food on your table so should you be.

    Google up "Texas drought" and see how many millions they are estimating that small impact is having on your economy. Sure drought might have happened anyway but would it have been as severe or as long lasting if man had not (*)(*)(*)(*)ed with the environment?

    d
     
  23. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Science of climate change (in both directions) is well established. The models postulating hysterical scenarios are something else altogether. There is no doubt that the planet has warmed and ecosystems changed, in some cases quite profitably for the human race. For example, New York is quite an economic powerhouse, and if the planet had not warmed it would be difficult to create value in real estate if it were still under 1000' of ice.

    The fossil record does not contain the type of global daily temperature information available to climate modelers from the past decades. What is certain is that those parroting "record temperature change!!" are only talking about a record determined during the past 150 years or so (if that), and by NO means can it be claimed that widespread changes in temperature haven't occurred before. Unless you care to show your math on how 150 years out of the past 5,000,000 is statistically representative?

    Google up CANADA and see how an entire country has profited by the most recent climate change. Or New York. While unidirectional claims of effect are interesting to an advocate, they have nothing to do with an honest look at the good and bad of a changing climate.
     
  24. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,416
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since that has nothing to do whether rapid warming benefits New York _now_, I wonder why you bring it up. Ice sheets are not threatening New York for 50,000 years or so. At that time, your argument will have some validity, but it has no validity now.

    But we have an excellent climate record of the distant past. Your argument that we must know weather to know climate is absurd. You don't need to know the exact temp on June 13th a thousand years ago to know the climate at the time.

    Do you also declare people parrot how the earth orbits the sun? What, in your opinion, turns a statement of fact into "parroting"?

    Again, proxies. We know past climate, despite your incorrect insistence that we don't.

    Being that climate isn't statistical noise, that's a senseless statement.

    I googled. Alberta is facing chronic droughts now. The forests are dying en masse from bark beetles. Is this the profit you speak of? Please be specific, being that you're the one claiming such wonderful climate-related benefits for Canada. Crop growth is much more dependent on soil and rainfall than temperature. No rain, no crops. There's little soil in northern Canada, just arctic bog on top of granite. Where are these wondrous benefits are going to show up?

    The best climate is the climate that human civilization grew up with, being that infrastructure and population centers are designed around such a climate. Change is _not_ good. The earth is full, and you can't move entire populations. Handwaving "well, it will be better for some" is an immoral position. That is, unless you're volunteering to take in a displaced Bengali family.
     
  25. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It does. Once upon a time, the world was colder. And humans profited handsomely by it warming. People objecting to warming are more fundamentally objecting to change, IMHO, not the warming itself.

    Those pretending that "this spring is the warmest on record!!" always neglect to mention that "the record" is statistically insignificant, as far as knowing if the changes in the past 150 years mean ANYTHING, let alone anything significant.

    I didn't say that. I said that proxies aren't the same as daily global temperature readings in the modern era. But those proxies you mention certainly indicate that the past warmings pre-dated coal fired power plants. Of course, I don't need global daily temperature arguments to substantiate geologic knowledge, so the proxies work pretty well for showing the general nature of those past warmings. And coolings.

    Thank you for substantiating my comment by not providing your calculation to the contrary. The reason WHY you can't is because my statement is correct.

    They already have. Without some global warming, Canada is a non-country. Warming took place, and EVERYTHING Canada is today is because of it. Advocates of more warming being the harbinger of death and destruction ignore the fact that humans tend to do better in warmer environments than cooler ones. Canada, and New York, being just two examples of how this has happened before.

    And now we see the truth. This idea, which I agree is ingrained in the human psyche, is the actual problem. It doesn't matter WHAT the change is, only that it is happening. Of course, it has always been happening, and those who have enjoyed less change, when faced with more, will bit*h, moan, whine, proclaim that "the science is settled!", and perform all manner of self flagellation to convince others to somehow stop said change, change their behavior to stop said change, and dream up whatever means are necessary to convince others of the righteousness of their cause.

    Not because the world is warming, or cooling, but only because they believe something is changing.
     

Share This Page