Remember me
▼ Content

Oh No! Greenland is Melting, at an alarming rate...


Oh No! Greenland is Melting, at an alarming rate...02-08-2019 18:37
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1398)
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/walloped-by-heat-wave-greenland-sees-massive-ice-melt/971884535

Apparently. France's heat wave shifted north, and Greenland is on track for record breaking ice melt this summer. The anticipate it to break the 2012 record of 90%, well before the end of summer melting season.

The addressed rising sea levels, of course, but unfortunately, they didn't make much sense. More confusing than usual. Sort of looked like they dug up all the past, failed predictions, and put them into the story, without checking for conflicts. I don't personally believe floating ice will raise the sea level, or the run off from land ice, to do much of anything either. Doesn't matter, I know how to swim pretty good. With 80% of the planet surface water, should be a required skill in public school. Good chance most everyone will be in a situation where it would come in hand. Swimming is also on of the best exercises, works pretty much ever muscle at one time. Great for the heart, and lungs. Instead of a sweaty locker room smell, you smell clean, like bleach, after you workout. Yeah, I was a competitive swimmer, from age 9, through High School... Oh, and it's self motivating too, when you are in the water, it's either swim, or sink and drown...

Do the people of Greenland really want to keep all that ice anyway? I wasn't loving out in Oregon. Seems like if the ice was gone, they'd have more land to use for farming and stuff. They would have better access to the ocean, and have more use of it, other than the few melted months each year.
02-08-2019 19:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/walloped-by-heat-wave-greenland-sees-massive-ice-melt/971884535

Apparently. France's heat wave shifted north, and Greenland is on track for record breaking ice melt this summer. The anticipate it to break the 2012 record of 90%, well before the end of summer melting season.

The addressed rising sea levels, of course, but unfortunately, they didn't make much sense. More confusing than usual. Sort of looked like they dug up all the past, failed predictions, and put them into the story, without checking for conflicts. I don't personally believe floating ice will raise the sea level, or the run off from land ice, to do much of anything either. Doesn't matter, I know how to swim pretty good. With 80% of the planet surface water, should be a required skill in public school. Good chance most everyone will be in a situation where it would come in hand. Swimming is also on of the best exercises, works pretty much ever muscle at one time. Great for the heart, and lungs. Instead of a sweaty locker room smell, you smell clean, like bleach, after you workout. Yeah, I was a competitive swimmer, from age 9, through High School... Oh, and it's self motivating too, when you are in the water, it's either swim, or sink and drown...

Do the people of Greenland really want to keep all that ice anyway? I wasn't loving out in Oregon. Seems like if the ice was gone, they'd have more land to use for farming and stuff. They would have better access to the ocean, and have more use of it, other than the few melted months each year.


The people of Greenland generally don't live where most of the ice of Greenland exists (in the central high basin). They live for the most part along the southern and eastern coasts, which are normally ice free part of the year anyway. Separating the two is a mountain range that basically encircles the central high basin.

The only way for ice (or water) to flow out of that basin is a gap in those mountains on the northwest corner of the subcontinent. There is no significant increase of flow occurring there.


The Parrot Killer
20-08-2019 18:29
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1398)
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/earths-future-in-being-written-in-fastmelting-greenland/977658175

Update to the melting story... Last part kind of dismissive of the climatology crap it started with.

I still don't understand the sea level rising thing, how they could be measuring it, or why we aren't seeing some of it during the summer months, with all the catastrophic polar melting going on. The estimated amount of water from the melt, seems about like peeing in somebodies backyard swimming pool. Not to mention the ice sheets, are already ocean water, just in solid form.

The last part of the article was almost funny, what some of the locals had to say to the climatologist about the melting, and how it effects them, how they felt about it. One guy figures he'll give up his dog sleds, and get a fishing boat. Goes from a 'green' transportation, to a CO2 producer, and sort of happy about it, not ashamed to tell the Climatologist, either.

My guess, is that Trump should have offered to buy Greenland years ago. Not a chance now, they like having an actual summer, and looking forward to having less ice. Easier to get around in boats. Unfortunately though, I think the climatologist are full of B.S., and the ice will eventually reform, and build up, as always. Also illustrates my views on ice cores, and how useful they are. They're claiming thousands of years worth of ice build up is gone. They also explained that there is sort of a transitional state, between solid and liquid, sort of like slush. Wouldn't partially melted ice, tend to release most of it's trapped gasses? I'm sure the ice core specialists have a complicate process of determine how may layers melted away, and how much gas released.
23-08-2019 21:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(615)
The ice cores are taken from the antarctic where very little melting takes place inland so the records written in the ice cores go back huge numbers of years. They contain CO2 concentrations at various times in the distant past. Then they correlate it with geological evidence of sea level at those various times.
Edited on 23-08-2019 21:48
23-08-2019 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
keepit wrote:
The ice cores are taken from the antarctic where very little melting takes place inland so the records written in the ice cores go back huge numbers of years. They contain CO2 concentrations at various times in the distant past. Then they correlate it with geological evidence of sea level at those various times.


Argument from randU fallacy.

* Ice cores do not measure CO2. CO2 is permeable to ice.
* There is no 'geological evidence' of a global sea level. Land moves, you see.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2019 22:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
keepit wrote: The ice cores are taken from the antarctic where very little melting takes place inland so the records written in the ice cores go back huge numbers of years.

... but what is the full effect of sublimation? That's a huge margin of error right there.

... what about the manner in which CO2 reacts with ice as well as the porous nature of the ice itself? That's a huge margin of error right there.

... and what about the heavy deforming of ice due to the massive weight of the ice above? That's a huge ... well, you get the point.

So, when you take all of this into account, what conclusions can we legitimately draw?

keepit wrote: Then they correlate it with geological evidence of sea level at those various times.

Except that they haven't the vaguest notion of "the sea level" at any point in time. As far as anyone knows, the ocean has always been at its current "level" for as long as there has been an ocean. There isn't a single person who has any way to measure the sea level of any point in history. Taking an ice core from one spot on earth doesn't help in that regard one iota.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you are claiming "that we know"?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-08-2019 22:42
keepit
★★★☆☆
(615)
Except that they haven't the vaguest notion of "the sea level" at any point in time. As far as anyone knows, the ocean has always been at its current "level" for as long as there has been an ocean. There isn't a single person who has any way to measure the sea level of any point in history. Taking an ice core from one spot on earth doesn't help in that regard one iota.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you are claiming "that we know"?

.[/quote]
I guess i have more faith in the thousands of scientists and their agreement about various facts. In other words i'm pretty sure they have taken those things into account, not that i haven't had the same questions in the past.

Geological evidence of sea level refers to relative levels to various evidence, i think.

Bottom line, i would think that the huge margins of error that you mention are really very small in a relative sense.
What makes you think they are relatively huge?
Edited on 23-08-2019 22:44
23-08-2019 23:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1448)
keepit wrote:
I guess i have more faith in the thousands of scientists ...


Bingo... Faith is a religion, not science.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
23-08-2019 23:28
keepit
★★★☆☆
(615)
Don't let details obscure our overall view.
"Forest for the trees" sort of thing.
Edited on 23-08-2019 23:28
24-08-2019 01:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
keepit wrote:
Except that they haven't the vaguest notion of "the sea level" at any point in time. As far as anyone knows, the ocean has always been at its current "level" for as long as there has been an ocean. There isn't a single person who has any way to measure the sea level of any point in history. Taking an ice core from one spot on earth doesn't help in that regard one iota.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you are claiming "that we know"?

.

I guess i have more faith in the thousands of scientists and their agreement about various facts.[/quote]
There it is. The word 'faith'. All hanging out pink and naked. You are believing a religion.

Science is not scientists. It does not use consensus. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
keepit wrote:
In other words i'm pretty sure they have taken those things into account, not that i haven't had the same questions in the past.

Again, a statement of faith. You don't know. You can't specify how any of it was taken into account except to make a vague claim.
keepit wrote:
Geological evidence of sea level refers to relative levels to various evidence, i think.

You're not sure? You can't even specify what the 'evidence' is? You're guessing!
keepit wrote:
Bottom line, i would think that the huge margins of error that you mention are really very small in a relative sense.

So you just dismiss the math. Fine. Your problem.
keepit wrote:
What makes you think they are relatively huge?

What makes you think they are relatively small?

* You can't name any of these 'scientists'. You simply claim they exist.
* You can't name any theory of science that is in use. You simply claim the magick that it somehow is 'science'.
* You can't show how any of this evidence is anything more than leaping to a conclusion.
* You can't show the margin of error...a math calculation.

You are desperately clinging to your faith in your religion any way you can.

* You tried to call it 'science'. It isn't.
* You tried to make up <insert large value here> numbers of scientists. You are just making it up.
* You tried to redefine science.
* You tried to suggest science is governed by some kind of voting system.
* You tried to make up <insert small value here> for the margin of error. You are just making it up.
* You tried to point to geological evidence when you can't even specify the geology.
* You are trying to do all this to somehow justify 'climate change' when you can't DEFINE 'climate change'.

You are lost and confused. It's obvious. This is the illiteracy that your religion has brought you to.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-08-2019 01:16
24-08-2019 01:15
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1398)
keepit wrote:
Except that they haven't the vaguest notion of "the sea level" at any point in time. As far as anyone knows, the ocean has always been at its current "level" for as long as there has been an ocean. There isn't a single person who has any way to measure the sea level of any point in history. Taking an ice core from one spot on earth doesn't help in that regard one iota.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you are claiming "that we know"?

.

I guess i have more faith in the thousands of scientists and their agreement about various facts. In other words i'm pretty sure they have taken those things into account, not that i haven't had the same questions in the past.

Geological evidence of sea level refers to relative levels to various evidence, i think.

Bottom line, i would think that the huge margins of error that you mention are really very small in a relative sense.
What makes you think they are relatively huge?[/quote]

It's kind of difficult to get geological evidence, from the same site the extracted the ice cores, so basically do the just search the planet for something that works for them? You do realize that ice moves, right? You've hear of glaciers, but other ice masses also move and shift as well.

The margin of error is huge, because it's one big planet. The polar ice caps are a small part, the areas they are pulling ice cores, even smaller. What's the diameter of an ice core??? And it represents how big of planet? Now, if you've read any of the IPCC literature, you'd know they are talking about some very small numbers. Average one degree Celsius warming, stretch over 100 years. It's taken 300 years for CO2 increase 0.02% to our current 0.04%. Very tiny numbers, based on small samples, but expanded to represent an entire F'ing planet. Small margin of error? You've got to be kidding, or soft in the head. Do you really think arctic ice, can tell you much about what's going on at the equator? Been decades since I've seen ice any where, except my drink, and on TV.

We haven't been watching the arctic all that long, how would you know if all the ice sometimes melts, maybe every couple thousand years it get close. We don't really know. We don't even know what the normal temperature of the planet should be. We could actually still be below average...
24-08-2019 02:07
keepit
★★★☆☆
(615)
Somehow my quotes got mixed up with your quotes.
Then somehow you started arguing with your own side's statements.
Edited on 24-08-2019 02:08
24-08-2019 02:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
I guess i have more faith in the thousands of scientists ...


Bingo... Faith is a religion, not science.

You have become wise Grasshopper.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1wjvP-raOI


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-08-2019 02:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
keepit wrote:Bottom line, i would think that the huge margins of error that you mention are really very small in a relative sense.

Unfortunately, error margin is relative. It gets translated into absolute values at the end but you can think of it as a percentage, e.g.

1,000 years +/- 10% is 1,000 years +/- 100 years.


keepit wrote:What makes you think they are relatively huge?

They directly affect what is being measured. Ice sublimates (evaporates) and become part of the level/year above ... and below, ice starts to merge and requires guessing in the measuring.

CO2 moves through the ice, i.e. it is not really trapped. There's no way to know how to measure the way it was.

The margin of error is always huge when measuring changes to guessing.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Oh No! Greenland is Melting, at an alarming rate...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
"GREENLANDS melting ice may affect everyone"922-10-2019 23:17
Population Change and Demography - the malthusian rate.3818-10-2019 21:10
Cause of global warming: melting glaciers.2425-07-2019 18:35
Climate Change causing Iguana populations to grow, at an alarming rate!003-07-2019 04:04
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact