‘Unprecedented’ Greenland Surface Melt – Every 150 Years?
Innacurate and misleading headlines from NASA? It could never happen! Right? Right?!?[Editor's note: When über-alarmist Andrew Revkin hand-slaps NASA and its poorly worded press release, one's heart can soar, but only temporarily. To maintain and keep his warmist credentials, he goes on to stick a few hair pins into those who genuinely believe in actual science and not consensus blibber-blabbering, as emphasized below. The Grey Lady continues to weep.]
The flow of news releases and background science content from NASA is generally excellent, but the space agency badly blew it earlier this week with this headline, which has now reverberated around the Web: “Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt.”
Unprecedented means “never done or known before.” Yet the news release beneath the headline directly undercuts that description of this melting event, saying that it is rare — the last wide surface melt was in 1889, recorded in separate ice cores at the Greenland ice-sheet summit and in the northwestern part of the vast frozen expanse — and has happened roughly every 150 years over a long stretch of centuries, as recorded deeper in the ice. (Here’s a figure from a 1994 Science paper pointing to a series of such melt layers, reflecting summer warmth. Please see the postscript below for the key reference, provided by Lora Koenig of NASA.)
The inaccurate headline and burst of hyperventilating coverage and commentary (with some exceptions, like this new post by Climate Central) have already provided fodder for those whose passion or job is largely aimed at spreading doubt about science pointing to consequential greenhouse-driven warming.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
I remember a time when Revkin actually gave a hoot about science and its integrity. I guess all the slings and arrows he's taken (by the likes of Romm, Mann, Hansen) for giving voice to both sides of the issue finally wore him out. That should've told him to find a new subject to write about or simply retire.
As you have read all of the research into this subject? I have been learning all I can about AWG for about 2 years now and started here, with Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
I was curious about AWG deniers and thought I'd check out a denialist website to see what makes them tick. I see a lot of angry, crazy, and snarky comments, but nothing that would change my opinion that AWG is real.
Now that is a really stupid comment. Do you think you would say that if you actually knew me? I advise you to seek mental help.
Concensus science does not exist,did you know that. Concensus is a political term.
You are in denial my friend.
Not so. I am not a "climate expert" as I am certain that you are not either. So, we both have to accept a certain amount on faith, based on what we do know. I do have a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife, so I do know how to research the subject I am interested in and read it critically. This I have done over the past two years with AWG. I started out skeptical if not on the obvious fact that the world is getting warmer, then at least on the cause. I am now quite convinced that although other factors affect climate, greenhouse trapping hydrocarbons, mainly CO2 are the main driver.
You can argue (quite falsely) that I have no understanding of the science whatsoever, but I have done my homework before coming to my still evolving conclusions. If you would like to know what of the sources where I get my information, check the following link: on-climate.com/the-latest-news/
Quote:Joe, you just illustrated the fact that you cannot discern between propaganda, and peer reviewed scientific journal entries.
Quote:No chance of quitting while you are ahead, so just quit now!
My degree is in IT and Computing - which means I have a good skills in logic and deduction.
I was once a warmist like you, but on researching into the subject over the past 2 years changed to be a sceptic. All good scientists should be sceptics.
If you feel that climate is driven by man made co2 can you explain why the planet has been cooling over the last 15 years while co2 has risen and continues to rise.(Does co2 come before the warming or the warming before co2?)
How many parts per million do you think co2 is in the atmosphere? How much of this is from humans? Do you consider the sun plays no part in man made climate change? Do you consider the IPCC to be a non-politically impartial organisation producing only peer reviewed reliable and extensively tested papers?
And finally can you produce 1 peer reviewed paper that discounts Natural Variability as the primary cause of climate change?
Just a few questions that no doubt you have all the answers. If you can answer all the above, I will be converted to a Gleick fan.
As if I would pay the slightest bit of attention or show any concern for anything said by anyone who has to start their comment with "You deniers..."
At least we aren't such a clueless idiot that we need to start a comment with "You deniers...."
Based on the epithets I have been reading on this website that are directed towards those who do not subscribe to your conspiracy theories, I would say that my "deniers" comment is pretty mild. Time to put your big boy pants on and not get your panties in such an uproar.
"Time to put on your big boy pants"? You really are a joke.
Quote:1100 peer reviewed papers that refute man made climate change and/or climate mitigation...
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Joe, please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes.
As Tez said, you are the climate change denier.
As for refuting natural variability as the cause of recent "or any" global climate changes (emphasis mine), I never said there was no such thing. The world is a multi-variate model, not a single variable model and obviously, the climate has changed many times. However, 97 percent of climate scientists (real ones who work at actual Universities)contend that CO2 emissions are the driver of the temp rises we're seeing today.
Show me one peer reviewed paper that disproves the link between greenhouse gases and global warming and/or one that proves that CO2 levels are not rising.
I can't believe there are people who still quote that 97% blather. There aren't even 97 real scientists (more like 79) who agree with that:
www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/9703/Ninety-Seven-Percent-Is-Not-What-You-Think
Please show me the survey that demonstrates that only 79 climate scientists agree that CO2 emissions are the primary driver for AGW.
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_qconsensusq_opiate_the_97_solution.html?Itemid=0
OK, I looked at your link and can affirm that it's just another wacko conspiracy website, like the one's that dispute the moon landing, etc. And if you don't consider the IPCC to be a legitimate source, then nothing I provide for you is going to be acceptable. I think I've learned all I need to about AWG deniers. I'd like to say it's been fun, but it's just been kind of sad, really. I'm outa here. So, good luck, I hope none of you end up going postal.
What? Can't find one?
I was a climatology student three decades ago after spending many years as a geology student. I have followed this scam since its inception and have witnessed the birth of modern pseudo-science, which ignores both empirical data and the scientific method.
You sir show your vast ignorance on this subject when referencing that '97% of climate scientists' claim. If 1100 peer reviewed scientific papers are too much with which to start, try researching the numbers behind that farcical claim. The writers of that claim had to throw out almost 98% of the responses to the corresponding survey to arrive at their 97% BS.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the climate changes that we have seen over the last century. This is why one must first disprove natural variability before advancing another mechanism. So again I refer you the the 1100 papers.
Find me just one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent of any climate changes.
So far the score is...
Gator: 1100
Joe: 0
Gator: 1100
Joe: 0
1100 papers? What a waste of time that would be, kind of like reading 1100 "peer reviewed" papers disproving evolution. I prefer research conducted by actual University scientists or at least by those who are not on the payroll for polluting industries such as big oil. If you want to read real studies, try this link: on-climate.com/the-latest-news/.
By the way, as I said in my last response, I have never said, nor do I believe there's no natural variability in recent climate changes. However, it is possible to control for those variables. This has been done many times over, each time with similar results: the climate is changing, global average temperatures are increasing, and rising heat-trapping hydrocarbon levels are to blame.
I couldn't care less what you think the score is.
"Members of the Climate Change Community meet annually at the International Conference on Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, held annually in different locations around the world. This conference examines evidence of climate change, its natural and human causes, its ecosystemic impacts and its human impacts. The conference also addresses technological, social, ethical and political responses to climate change."
So in other words you prefer to wallow in your ignorance, supported by alarmist propaganda. The 1100 papers I referenced are actual peer reviewed scientific papers, from actual science journals.
How thick are you?
How thick am I? Not thick enough to continue arguing with a complete idiot. See you later.
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/history-of-how-this-fraud-was-perpetrated/
This, along with numerous other studies, proves to me that AGW is 10% science and 90% politics.
I'll review your link and get back to you after I get home from work. I'm skeptical of anything that comes from a site like this, but I'll at least give a fair review to what you sent me.
Your claim that it is getting "Warmer" is also complete nonsense. It hasn't warmed for over 16 years despite the ever increasing levels of the so called "Green House Gas Co2". Another failed prediction by the 97% you claim are "Reliable Sources". Quote:
And hey Joe! How about the mother of all failed IPCC "Predictions"? The Tropospheric Hot Spot ALL of the Models predicted. The Hot Spot that proves the "Green House Gas Theory".
Trouble is Joe after decades and some 30+ Million Radio Sonode Flights. There is not a single wisp of empirical evidence supporting the Co2 Theory.
Quote: sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
They, like you are Empirical Evidence Deniers. Instead they (and you) willfully choose to ignore observational based science and rely on computer models and provably false assumptions.
No worries though Joe. We are used to being called "Deniers" by folks who ignore the empirical evidence. Oh and we are laughing at you.
NOAA previously stated that if global temperatures had not sufficiently increased over a 15-year period, then AGW climate models are falsified. (NOAA 2008 State of the Climate Report).
You know what that means right Joe? If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. PERIOD!
It's worth noting that NIWA was caught doing the exact same thing. wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/nz-niwa-adjustment.png wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/
Yes only 75 out of 77 biased pseudo-scientists (97.4%)
www.petitionproject.org/
What about the 31,487 (includes 9029 phds) who say different.
lets add them in then
I get 31487/31564
99.76% of all scientists say humans are not responsible for global warming.
True science is not about concensus. Concensus is politics.
www.petitionproject.org/
Imagine for a minute, the earsplitting din from the left, that would occur if someone in Yeo's position had similar oil company interests.
Duplicitous to the core.