Once-Shrinking Greenland Glacier Is Now Growing, NASA Study Shows (nbcnews.com) 289
kenh shares a report from NBC News: A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds. The Jakobshavn (YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday's Nature Geoscience. Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
Jakobshavn (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Surely YA-cobs-haun would be more accurate, no?
End of March (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While growing, how far did it reach? The maximum extent (alternatively, the you could measure the minimum extent, or an average, as long as you're being consistent) has been less than the previous year's by 3km. In last 2 years the maximum extent has grown instead of shrunk, which is a significant change.
Well there is all the proof you need (Score:4, Funny)
Chemtrails work.
temporary (Score:2)
"Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary." Could you put a timescale on that? After all, many scientists believe that the Earth is temporary.
It's always bad news (Score:2)
Glaciers growing again?
Ocean cooler than predicted by a lot?
How can we possibly spin this news as bad... oh I've got it, claim that obviously that since the water temperature also lowered it must mean that water temperature and glacial retreat are strongly linked!
What's that you say the water would have to get warm again to cause a problem? Shh!!
Important life lesson for people: If someone claims everything is bad, they are often wrong about everything.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the ocean there is cooler, because of how the currents cyclically change how they flow. The ocean overall is still getting warmer every year. (See also, it getting colder in winter is not proof the earth isn't getting warmer.)
I cannot tell if you're arguing in bad faith or lack the ability to comprehend what you're reading. Care to clarify?
Re: (Score:2)
Glaciers growing again?
No, the article is about one glacier. Plenty of other glaciers are still shrinking. Earth is still getting warmer, but at the same time, heat moves around, so some places can get extra warm, while others get cooler.
Hold the phone! Nature works in cycles? (Score:2)
Well, this is certainly news.
Article is garbage (Score:3)
About the same rate? OK, so what WAS the rate of replenishment? TFA never bothers to say. Why is our time being wasted with this zero-information tripe?
Re: (Score:2)
At the same rate, means 1.8 miles and thickening 130 feet annually.
Re: (Score:2)
it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years,
About the same rate?
At the same rate, means 1.8 miles and thickening 130 feet annually.
Yes, that's what "at the same rate" would mean. However, I didn't ask that, because the article didn't say that. I asked what "about the same rate" means, because that's what the article said. Your comment has exactly as much useful information as the article: none.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
I takes more faith to believe in Climate Change theories than to believe in God.
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings. God is an imaginary being that only your clergy can communicate with and whose existence cannot be documented. This invisible being that only the clergy can communicate with tells them how it wants you to behave and that it will smite you and cast you into a place of eternal torture called hell whose existence cannot be documented either. Give me climate science over your imaginary friend any day.
Re: (Score:2)
God is an imaginary being that only your clergy can communicate with...
That part depends on the religion. Not all of them require clergy as an intermediary.
Re: (Score:2)
_YOU_ can measure it in very small time increment. It might be warming up for the next 4000 years, it does not necessarily mean that's not by design.
We live 70-80 years, and we judge events based on that because we're so egocentric.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Funny)
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings.
Funny, it reminds me of Chris Reimer's video channel audience that is shrinking by the minute. For sure he ain't no god although he likes to think he is somehow.
A bowl of Pasta can be god if you choose to worship it. That's how religion works.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Funny)
Ramen, brother!
Re: (Score:3)
Ramen, brother!
Sunday services at 12 noon, we will consume our lord in the form of Pasta Neapolitano with a nice Chianti.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, are you a noodelist or rigatonist? I just want to make sure I don't sit down with a heretic!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you a noodelist or rigatonist? I just want to make sure I don't sit down with a heretic!
Our noodly lord god's mysterious ways cause him to appear in many forms.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Funny)
Chianti.
Were you having an old friend for dinner?
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Interesting)
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings.
Funny, it reminds me of Chris Reimer's video channel audience that is shrinking by the minute. For sure he ain't no god although he likes to think he is somehow.
A bowl of Pasta can be god if you choose to worship it. That's how religion works.
So can climate models. That's how religion works.
Ever notice how when you see the predictions from multiple hurricane projection models, there often is one or two that are utterly different from the consensus of all the other 10-15 models used to predict hurricanes?
Why don't any of the climate models predictions we see ever do that? They're all really, really close. That's preposterous. How could they ALL BE ABOUT THE SAME?
That REALLY should be causing a lot of questions to be raised about what process could be forcing all the models to agree.
But yet you worship the output from those models, and expect the rest of the human race to agree with you and expend trillions of dollars over decades to address YOUR beliefs, to the point of using non-scientific words dripping with emotional content to denounce the disbelievers: DENIALISTS!! You might as well drop the hypocrisy and just call them heretics.
You got the balls to actually look at your own beliefs critically?
No I don't, worship has nothing to do with it. You will not find the word worship used anywhere in science except in the study religion and even then only because worship is a central concept in religion. I don't think climate models are an omnipresent entity that only scientists can hear. So far no scientist has delivered to me a message from climate models that only they can hear that instructs me on how to live my life or else the almighty climate models will cast me into hell for an eternity of sadistic torture for refusing to 'believe'. That's how religion works. Climate science, like all science, is a method of procedure that consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion."
Yea, gonna have to stop you right there and called that a bald faced lie. There is even a famous yak about just this exact thing.
---The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with i
Re: (Score:2)
"Nothing in science is taken 'on faith' without any proof like in religion."
Yea, gonna have to stop you right there and called that a bald faced lie. There is even a famous yak about just this exact thing.
---The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."---
Scientists are humans too... and many scientists are religious or agnostic. In many ways a scientist that is an atheist is the worst scientist of all because they take the non-existence of any superior beings on faith alone. The absence of evidence is no proof of anything, and you seem to lack the understanding of why this is.
But the people Planck talked about all still based their work on observation, experimentation and math. Later generations may have corrected their theories with better data but they also based that on observation, experimentation and math. No scientist ever took the fact that the earth is round or that barnacle geese hatch from eggs as opposed to growing on trees on 'faith' without any evidence. Somebody did the math and proved the earth is round, somebody else went to wherever barnacle geese breed and obse
Re: (Score:2)
Advances in science are often complicated by the fact that the old theory was usually pretty good, and thus has lots of evidence for it.
I'm going to have to rate your logic skills zero stars.
In many ways a scientist that is an atheist is the worst scientist of all because they take the non-existence of any superior beings on faith alone.
That's pure nonsense.
He takes it on a lack of evidence.
Does he deny the possibility of there being one? Na. The atheist scientist doesn't. He just laughs when you tell them it's possible we live in an electric universe and doesn't feel like playing the "refute
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
That was never proven and never a scientific theory.
That was a view of the world that was assumed, not scientifically proven. Even though some scientists worked to make their models fit that assumption, it was "disproven" by theories using better measurements..
That idea came from was a religious scholar who added up all the begats in the bible to come up with an estimated age. It had nothing to do with science.
That was speculation made when the Milankovitch cycles were first becoming known. It seemed that if those cycles held true, we would be returning to a glaciation maximum in the next few thousand years, give or take a few thousand, and it was unkown how quickly that might occur. Combined with the cold winters in the 70s that gave the press something sensational to write, but it had nothing to do with scientific proof.
Re: (Score:2)
It was well known and *PROVEN* at one time, though these scientific methods and the observable information at hand that:
The Earth was flat
When was that considered proven?
What was the proof?
Re: (Score:2)
How strange of you.
Re: Unbelievable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization.
Man has been stupid and greedy, and our short-sightedness is having negative results. It's physics, which is open source, and not worship.
While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term...
Everything is "bad news". Everything! It doesn't matter what happens, it'll be twisted to "I told you so!"
No, it does matter. "Banning" (reducing production of) CFCs was effective at permitting restoration of the ozone layer. For all that it's horribly annoying, the CARB has been highly effective at increasing air quality in California. When things work, we acknowledge them. But when there's a problem, we acknowledge that, too. Hiding doesn't help.
Science says "The glacier is growing again, I wonder what is making that happen since my hypothesis is that it should be shrinking."
We already knew it was cycli
Re: (Score:2)
Man has sinned through industrialization, and the price to be paid is the destruction of our civilization.
I must have missed that price mentioned in the IPCC reports. Do you have a link?
Re: (Score:2)
That REALLY should be causing a lot of questions to be raised about what process could be forcing all the models to agree.
Unless you're crazy, the obvious answer is that this is a repeatable scientific study.
Weather models are totally different because they're past the macroscopic level and into the turbulent details.
Re: (Score:2)
Weather models are totally different because they're past the macroscopic level and into the turbulent details.
Indeed. That's one of the things my ocean studies teacher is trying to impress into the class. Weather is what is happening in one place at one time. Climate is the average of all that.
Predicting a single human's actions is hard. Predicting the actions of a group is easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't there a a thing in the book about camels and eyes of needles?
What about the part that tells you to sell all your Apple products, SUVS and plasma TVs and give the money to the poor? That doing so accumulates riches in the afterlife...?
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Interesting)
Wasn't there a a thing in the book about camels and eyes of needles?
What about the part that tells you to sell all your Apple products, SUVS and plasma TVs and give the money to the poor? That doing so accumulates riches in the afterlife...?
I'm an atheist, as far as I know there is no afterlife so I am planning my life based on that fact. What that means is that I'm going to acquire as much wealth as I can and live my life as comfortably as I can. It's the US Christian community that has turned Christianity into a cult of Mammon which, having read the bible, I find immensely amusing given what the scriptures (particularly Jesus) had to say. To my surprise I have found that I tend to know more about Christian holy texts and the history of Christianity than the average Christian seems to do which is saying something because I don't really remember all that much from reading the bible. The main reason for my superior knowledge seems to be that unlike your average Christian I've actually read the bible cover to cover. The only people who seem to have any worthwhile knowledge of the Bible are formally educated priests and Atheists who debate the religious a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
To my surprise I have found that I tend to know more about Christian holy texts and the history of Christianity than the average Christian seems to do which is saying something because I don't really remember all that much from reading the bible.
Should not be a surprise, but I agree with the rest of your post, too.
Re: (Score:2)
To my surprise I have found that I tend to know more about Christian holy texts and the history of Christianity than the average Christian seems to do which is saying something because I don't really remember all that much from reading the bible. Should not be a surprise, but I agree with the rest of your post, too.
Maybe I'm naive but if you dedicate your entire life to a region, I always figured the first thing everybody does in read the manual. I mean it's your entire life we're talking about here. I only read the thing to get a handle on what the hell they are talking about when they dive into scripture.
Re: (Score:2)
Even post-reformational Christianity puts immense pressure on the average adherent to accept the opinion of an intraorganizational plant over any kind of independent thought you may have about the content.
I'm an atheist, but I was raised Christian.
The older I've gotten, the less forgivable it seems to me that these people peddle this snake oil.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Informative)
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
That is not a central tenet of the religion.
Re: (Score:3)
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
Then you weren't raised Christian. You were raised "Catholic Christian."
Catholicism has a lot of this "your priest is better than you" kind of thing. I can't stand it, myself, and I'm a Christian.
That's not a central tenet of Christianity. It's a central tenet of Catholicism.
Christianity is very much about you and God. Nobody else is involved. It's your personal choice, and your personal responsibility.
I interpret it myself, and every Protestant I've ever met does the same thing. That's not to say we
Re: (Score:2)
In that "Christianity" can actually be separated into a thousand different religions, sure. You're right.
But it's largest single denomination absolutely believes what God's representative on Earth decrees- and that is that the Pop and his Bishops are uniquely vested in the authority to interpret the scripture.
Sure, as the various sects have liberalized post-reformation, the idea of universal priesthood has gained a lot of ground, but it's still hard to argue that the Catechism of the Catholic C
Re: (Score:2)
The same book also says that Earth was given to Man to care for. And yet somehow worrying about global warming is anti-God because nobody actually thinks that responsibility means anything.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but Christianity has the dangerous narrative built in that you can basically crap on the world because it's YOURS and when you're done with it, the end of the world is coming anyway and you go to a blissful place.
Basically it's suicide terrorism on a global scale.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but Christianity has the dangerous narrative built in that you can basically crap on the world because it's YOURS and when you're done with it, the end of the world is coming anyway and you go to a blissful place.
Basically it's suicide terrorism on a global scale.
See, that doesn't make sense to me. If, as the Bible says, God both created the Earth and made man in his own image to be the stewards of his creation, then by letting the world basically go to hell we aren't being very good stewards are we? We've basically failed in our reason for existence. If God tossed Adam and Eve of Eden for simply eating an apple, imagine what he would have done if they had burned the whole place down. And, since the only heaven or hell we can absolutely 100% prove exists is right here on Earth, only seems to make sense to try and make it heaven, not hell.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Genesis 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
I didn't make their rules, I only quote them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but Christianity has the dangerous narrative built in that you can basically crap on the world because it's YOURS and when you're done with it, the end of the world is coming anyway and you go to a blissful place.
Basically it's suicide terrorism on a global scale.
Um .. no. You are commanded to love others as yourself, to put others needs ahead of your own.
Re: Unbelievable (Score:2)
Funny how you keep insisting on âoeproofâ to prove âoefaithâ. Kinda like you missed the definition of âoefaithâ.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't be all that intelligent if they believe in an entity whose existence cannot be proven
Believing in something that can't be proven is far better than believing against something that can never be disproven.
The only logical choice is to be agnostic. Being an atheist is absolutely retarded from the point of view of simple logic, and it's detrimental to society as atheists are generally selfish assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
You basically called ~82% of the world population stupid [1]. And over 70% of them are "Minorities" [2]
You are basically everything the nu-Left hates these days...
[1]https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/ [2] https://www2.palomar.edu/anthr... [palomar.edu]
No, I'm an atheist which means that I'll only believe in your deity if you can prove it exists. Now please prove to me that your god exists or stop bothering me.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You miss a fundamental point of the origin story and the fall.
Humans were given free will, took knowledge, and will be judged on how they use both.
If you take free will out of the equation, then there's no meaning to anything you do.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm an atheist which means that I'll only believe in your deity if you can prove it exists. Now please prove to me that your god exists or stop bothering me.
No, if you're an atheist you take the position that you do not believe in any deity, anything "supernatural", etc. period.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not religious, I'm just sick and tired of people blaming Christians for everything that is wrong with the world when they are clearly not.
Hindis have way more (insanely retarded) shit to prove than Muslims and Christians do, but nobody blames them for anything.
Muslims are less educated per capita, but no, Christians are the ignorant group.
Fuck off.
I just pointed out that it is irrational to: believe in an entity whose existence cannot be proven and whose priests tell you how to live your life so you follow their instructions for fear that this invisible entity whose existence cannot be proven will toss you into a hell that nobody can prove exists. My statement applies to the irrationality of religion in general. The reason I picked on Christians is that in my neck of the woods they are the most pervasive, and tend to be the most kooky and irritating.
Re: (Score:2)
it is their fundamentalists who complain and pour pigs blood on the ground when somebody wants to build a mosque
Holy shit this happened???
Re: (Score:2)
German racism isn't amusing to anyone, particularly German law enforcement.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know.
...
Your turn
Re: (Score:2)
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas Iâ(TM)ll never know.
Your turn ...
Tried to remove the tusks but they were imbedded too firmly. Of course in Alabama the tusks' a' loosa'
A stumbling step is often one floor above you.
...
Your turn
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not religious, I'm just sick and tired of people blaming Christians for everything that is wrong with the world when they are clearly not.
They're responsible for an awful lot that's wrong in one of the few countries with enough resources to do something about the problems in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
"Operation enduring freedom" or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 82%? I'd have guessed it would be more.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
I takes more faith to believe in Climate Change theories than to believe in God.
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Blah blah blah? Climate change is a lie.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:4, Funny)
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Agreed, these climate skeptics don't even know how to spell glacier.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, my everyday language isn't English and Glaciar is the correct spelling over here.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Agreed, these climate skeptics don't even know how to spell glacier.
Well duh. Anyone who has ever watched Bear Grylls know it's spelled glassear.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA says glacier is speeding up ? NASA is lying.
NASA says glacier is slowing down ? NASA is lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Blah blah blah? Climate change is a lie.
It's not "shrinking slower", it's "growing".
I find it ironic, though, that you're accusing him of this. Read the summary. There, you'll find that:
Glacier shrinking - Bad news! It's climate change!
Glacier growing - Bad news! It's climate change!
The alarmists are the ones who do the "it doesn't matter if two opposite things happen, both are evidence that catastrophic climate change is going to destroy the world!" thing.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see floods. I can see ice bergs melt. I can't see gods.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see gods.
You smoke the wrong things, bro!
You should at least see some goddesses!!
Consistent pattern (Score:3, Insightful)
1988 James Hansen New York will be Under Water in 20-30 years
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/... [salon.com]
1989 UN we have 12 years to save the planet
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c37... [apnews.com]
1989 New York Times NOAA (No warming trend over the past 100 years )
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/0... [nytimes.com]
2000 Snowfalls are a thing of the past
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp... [wattsupwiththat.com]
2005 UN we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010
http://www.spiegel.de/internat... [spiegel.de]
2009 James Hansen, Obama Has 4 years to save the planet
https://www.theguardian.co [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Look what you did, dumbass. Why did you have to trigger 50-year old atheist imbeciles?
Now instead having bunch of usually interesting +5 comments we are having atheist circlejerk shitfest.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you remember when
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could've just refuted OPs points on why consensus and science are polar opposites to one another, just like OP could've left out the appeal to authority and just made that point directly.
So I do it here:
Consensus is not science. Science is never settled. Experts are good and nice for science, and it is likely they are right on the next issues, but not certain. Politics is not science, either, so large scientific organisations, ever growing aggregates of consensus, old experts and politics, will only pro
Re: Deniable, by lying faggots... (Score:5, Informative)
I call bullshit on your argument. That's the same logical fault that is used by the anti-vax movement: because there is one "scientist" that published a link between autism and vaccination, the science is not settled. Let's just ignore that this "scientist" had his paper and approbation revoked for gross misconduct.
The question of "Is the human burning of fossil fuels affecting the world climate?" is settled. There is a small number of nay-Sayers, many with political and financial reasons, but that's completely normal. The on-going debate is only about the precise impact. Much of the projections in research papers is by nature conservative. Not in the political sense, but in the sense of "let's assume the unknown factors compensate as much as reasonable possible for humanities impact". Of course, media likes to quote the most dramatic projection instead, so for the layman it might look like drawing doomsday scenarios. A 50 feet raise of the ocean level doesn't sound that extreme, e.g. if you compare with https://xkcd.com/1225/ Not a scientific source and there is a ~10% difference in density between ice and water, but good enough.
Some of the big open questions are "Where is all the extra energy going that we do not see?" and "How does the raising ocean temperature affect the ocean and air circulation streams?". The former is difficult to answer because temperature monitoring for the world oceans is spotty at best. It's also an insanely large reservoir of storage capacity for heat, so small temperature changes reflect vast amounts of energy. The latter question is difficult to answer because there are a lot of small scale and large scale interactions all getting mixed up.
But with all those open questions, the data base is getting better every day and the quality of the models used is improving constantly as well. So far, the actual data has pretty consistently out-paced the conservative predictions for the temperature raise. That should be deeply troubling to everyone...
Re: (Score:2)
Relying on consenses is flawed of course. But relying on politics is even more amazingly flawed. If someone does not know the science and they can't crunch the numbers themselves then they are much better off figuring out what most of the scientists think than they are by asking politicians.
Not exactly. (Score:2)
Consensus is not science. Science is never settled.
On the other hand, it's pretty well accepted that the Earth goes around the Sun now.
And it's unlikely to need revisiting.
Similarly, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so that increasing the concentration of it will increase the greenhouse effect.
It's not rocket science. The problem is only that the fossil fuel industry has put a lot of PR money into establishing misinformation about this.
Re: (Score:2)
He goes through all this trouble of saying that consensus is not science, while using a single data point in a population to refute the whole. You know what's worse than taking something for granted simply because there's consensus? Assuming the consensus is wrong because you are woefully ignorant.
What if (Score:3)
"that doesn't magically solve other environmental problems like air and water quality, pollution disposal, habitat loss, and species extinction": If we discover that global warming is predominately a natural thing, rather than a man-made thing, that could well *help* solve these other problems, in the following two ways.
First, if global warming is natural, then it might be a random (or even cyclic) effect. In either of these is true, then warming is not with us forever. Many would consider that to be good
Re: (Score:2)
STOP carbon credit systemic manipulation.
This. I had a lovely experience with a similar credit system but for water. The EPA made it too expensive to upgrade a waste processing facility and so it was cheaper for the company to buy "clean water credits" instead of actually fixing an actual problem with their waste processing plant because of what the EPA regulations. Why fix a problem when you can buy "clean" whatever EPA measures and say "Oh look see we are clean!".
I lost a lot of respect for the EPA after that experience. When they make it more d
Re: (Score:2)
In the seventies it was common knowledge, and agreed on consensus, that the Earth was experiencing a climatic cooling period.
Here we have an example of complete bullshit.
In 2008, Petersen et al. published a comprehensive literature review of scholarly papers on that had an opinion on the subject: THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS [confex.com]
From the abstract:
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say tod
Re: (Score:2)
Science is as much of a religion for most people as religion is...
Surely you donâ(TM)t understand every aspect of climate science in order to verify the findings, right? So you accept some stuff on faith.
Worst case I can get somebody who does know climate change to verify the research results because they are physical mesuralbe observable and verifieable. Come to think of it, science already does that, it's called peer review. Now will you please submit your evidence for the existence of god and hell and explain why only designated clergy and prophets have a direct line to god and why god is so obsessed with the way the general public lives their lives?
Re: (Score:2)
Not so. If you only look for extreme hot meausremensts and disregard extreme cold ones, like the climatologists now do, you add a lot of bias to your so called measurements.
So we are talking about a global conspiracy of all climate scientists to convince humanity that the world is getting warmer? ... to what end?
Re:Still waiting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can also see the terminal moraine left by the glaciers in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the glacier ends now. I wonder why they likewise move higher up.
And I can see the postcards with pictures from the same spot in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the snow line ends now. I wonder why it moved higher up too.
Re:Still waiting... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is, but there is also a lot of claims of stuff being related which is not (that is not to even say your local situation is not.)
But more to the point when you see a glacier going the wrong way for your theory or whatever you find a way to write it off and then quote the movement of a few buildings locally as proof positive the other way than the evidence in the article? Few people argue about global warming but they do discuss how big a deal it is and if it is caused by man. Also as with your local example of local climate change people adapt to changes.
Re:Still waiting... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming, and if it were the other way (everything was getting colder locally) you would ignore it and say that it is globally that matters. That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is, but there is also a lot of claims of stuff being related which is not (that is not to even say your local situation is not.) But more to the point when you see a glacier going the wrong way for your theory or whatever you find a way to write it off and then quote the movement of a few buildings locally as proof positive the other way than the evidence in the article? Few people argue about global warming but they do discuss how big a deal it is and if it is caused by man. Also as with your local example of local climate change people adapt to changes.
The changes I'm seeing all over the N-Atlantic tell me that this is more than a 'local climate change', science confirms this and we have examples of what happened earlier in the earth's history when this much carbon dioxide was de-sequestered into the atmosphere. Long story short, it wasn't pretty. Given the choice between believing thousands of scientists saying the climate is changing and a few useful idiots shilling for the fossil fuel industry who say it isn't, I'm going to pick the scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
climategate was nothing interesting though (except to deniers). Some emails from one research centre in the UK were leaked that indicated raw data was manipulated before being fed into models. It was then externally audited and was found to be the correct kind of manipulation for the data. I'm sure you can read whatever you want about it somewhere on the internet.
I'm sure we don't know the exact effects. We can only look back in time to see when the planet was last warmer - not good, or when it last had hig
Re:Still waiting... (Score:4, Informative)
but what are the scientists saying, because there is a lot of sensationalism in the media of what they are saying and there is what they are really saying. What they are really saying is all sorts of things but not a unified consensus about what will happen and what the cause of what has happened is. There is a problem with media and true believers (not yourself probably) who have spouted stuff and then they followed up by staying with the program. There is a thing called climate gate. When chicken little runs around saying the sky is falling he gets enough media attention and says everything that happens is a sign of the end of the world and what not it becomes difficult to sift out the crap and get to the truth. Have a look at climate gate and you may get a insight into the mindset here. None of that proves anything just that there is a lot of fud. For example these glaciers were supposed to disappear now they are not disappearing but it is bad news and some people expect us all to stay convinced and fearful about the end of world in 7 years. Some of us are a little jaded by the climate stuff being the end of the world and every news story having to follow the same path.
Try reading up on the Permian–Triassic extinction event it was caused by an 8 degree increase in global temperatures due to CO2 emissions (or a breakdown of the carbon cycle as scientists called it) it killed every terrestrial animal over 5 kg in weight and 96% of all marine species. I don't know if you'd call that the end of the world but in my book it is pretty close and even if the damage is limited to a subset of what happened during the PT event is bad all on it's own. We have currently raised the temperature of the planet by 1 degree over pre-industrial levels so that's 1/8th of the P/T event increase and we are on track for 2-4 which is 1/4 to 1/2 of the PT event if nothing is done and so far the increase in temperature has always beaten projections because of unforeseen feedback loops. The thing is that if the temperature increase reaches a certain point the warming became a runaway process in the past and there is no reason to believe the same won't happen this time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What I did is simply taking numbers everyone can look up. We know the surface temperature of the Sun. It's effective temperature is about 5777 K. We know the Solar constant is slighly less than 1.4 kW. We know the diameter of the Earth and can thus calculate how much energy the Sun radiates to the Earth. We can calculate how warm a black body the size of the Earth has to have to radiate as much energy back to Space. We know, it's 254 K
Re: (Score:2)
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming,
Actually, the location and size of a glacier is a good indicator of the average of local temperatures over many years. We call this "climate."
You're right that this is only one spot on the earth, which neither proves or disproves *anything* about global climate. However, the same observation of glacier retreat are made all over the world. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why all new structures have moved higher up.
Because advancements in transportation and construction have made it possible, and because being higher up means you have better views, longer slopes, a longer season to make money, etc.?
Re:Still waiting... (Score:5, Informative)
For some evidence of global warming. It's been decades now, and everything they've shown us as evidence has turned out not to be the case.
I wonder if in fifty years they'll be going on about global warming, even when it still isn't happening?
Here you go: http://berkeleyearth.org/globa... [berkeleyearth.org], now rejoice in the fact that your life long quest is over. Perhaps you can spend the rest of your life waiting for Trickle-down economics to start working?
Re: (Score:2)
For some evidence of global warming. It's been decades now, and everything they've shown us as evidence has turned out not to be the case.
The increasing global mean surface temperature. [nasa.gov]
The rising sea level [globalchange.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why. Herbicides that move through the food chain and hurt eagles are illegal and food is available without herbicide use at most grocery stores, so people can choose. Whereas glacial melt is the result of a societal decision, and how much pollution we allow and how to capture the externalized costs of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's cool, you were able to wipe out 4 complete strawmen with only one comment! Congrats, they didn't stand a chance!
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
Oh. From his telling, I didn't think he could win any more bigly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
tell me more about russian collusion the last 2 years.
My prediction is that the report says that Mueller uncovered insufficient evidence to prove [or seek conviction on the basis] that Trump was personally involved with collusion with Russians. He keeps meeting with Putin and not letting us know what was said, and he destroys evidence regularly. If he's so innocent, why is he so against there being any evidence to back up his good intentions?