The Great Global Warming Swindle

[AMDScooter]

Thread resurrection time:

Thunder? It's the sound of Greenland melting

I don't know if humans are causing this or not, but its pretty damn scary

Saw a report some time ago about a group of reporters who went to the pole in search of "GW" footage. You know, those melting iceberg screen caps we get subjected to every time someone is plugging their man made GW theory on the toobe. One of the guys collecting file footage asks the lead scientist if he is scared by what he sees in the melting ice.... the scientist turns and says " I see no evidence of the man made global warming you speak of... around here we call that melting ice the spring thaw... "

[Dutchcedar]

Thunder? It's the sound of Greenland melting

I don't know if humans are causing this or not, but its pretty damn scary

We have to keep in mind what the global warming alarmists keep telling us... we can't consider localized events as indicitive of what the man made global warming thing is all about.

Or somethin' like dat.

[BlackDragon24]

We have to keep in mind what the global warming alarmists keep telling us... we can't consider localized events as indicitive of what the man made global warming thing is all about.

Or somethin' like dat.

Well I certainly believe that our actions are shaping our climate in some sense or another....

But even if you don't believe in global warming as a man-made phenomenon, the idea of Greenland melting into the sea is quite alarming to me....especially that whole pesky little 23 foot increase in sea level thing. Especially since it appears that it is melting much fater than it "should" be.

Well I guess look at it this way Dutch.....if all that coastal property is under water, it should drive your property value way up

[Dutchcedar]

23 foot increase in sea level

There isn't enough water on the planet to do that. If there was, it might be kinda cool... no more New York and San Francisco liberals (except Nob Hill).

As to global warming being man-made... I'd have to hear a good reason for the global cooling that happened a couple decades ago (and lasted what, 15 years? I forget the details)... and a good reason for the warming of Mars and Venus. Ya see... if its man-made, those three things would not have happened, and I cannot understand how they could happen, but they did (and two of them still are happening).

[AMDScooter]

Better enjoy exhaling while it's free...

Carbon Tax Inevitable, Analysts Say

[Dutchcedar]

^^^

"This is going to happen anyway so we might as well enjoy it," Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, said during a discussion at the organization's Washington, D.C., headquarters. "And maybe something good will come of it."

That sounds so much like the reasoning we're given for the shamnesty bill, it makes ya wonder if this is the new standard... "Hey, the shits gonna happen sooner or later, so who cares if its wrong, as long as something might be, possibly beneficial along the way?"

[AMDScooter]

Here is a new report for ya BD:

Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion

From that same report:

Ice Sheet Disintegration

A good perspective on this issue is provided in the 16 March 2007 issue of Science by Shepherd and Wingham (2007), who review what is known about sea-level contributions arising from wastage of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets, focusing on the results of 14 different satellite-based estimates of the imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been derived since 1998. These studies have been of three major types - standard mass budget analyses, altimetry measurements of ice-sheet volume changes, and measurements of the ice sheets' changing gravitational attraction - and they have yielded a diversity of values, ranging from an implied sea-level rise of 1.0 mm/year to a sea-level fall of 0.15 mm/year. Based on their evaluation of these diverse findings, the two researchers come to the conclusion that the current "best estimate" of the contribution of polar ice wastage to global sea level change is a rise of 0.35 millimeters per year, which over a century amounts to only 35 millimeters, or less than an inch and a half.

Yet even this small sea level rise may be unrealistically large, for although two of Greenland's biggest outlet glaciers doubled their mass-loss rates in 2004, causing many to claim that the Greenland Ice Sheet was responding more rapidly to global warming than expected, Howat et al. (2007) report that the glaciers' mass-loss rates "decreased in 2006 to near the previous rates." And these observations, in their words, "suggest that special care must be taken in how mass-balance estimates are evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future, because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends."

Other findings also contradict Hansen's claim that "increasingly rapid changes on West Antarctica and Greenland ... are truly alarming." Writing in the 30 March 2007 issue of Science, for example, Anandakrishnan et al. (2007) describe a sedimentary wedge or "till delta" deposited by and under West Antarctica's Whillans Ice Stream that they detected via radar surveys made from the floating Ross Ice Shelf. This grounding-line buildup of sedimentary material, as they describe it, "serves to thicken the ice and stabilize the position of the grounding line," so that "the ice just up-glacier of the grounding line is substantially thicker than that needed to allow floatation." Consequently, they say that "the grounding-line will tend to remain in the same location ... until sea level rises enough to overcome the excess thickness that is due to the wedge."

So how high would the sea need to rise to "unground" the Whillans Ice Stream and wrest it from the continent? In a study that analyzes this question in detail, Alley et al. (2007) find that "sea-level changes of a few meters are unlikely to substantially affect ice-sheet behavior," and they conclude that a rise on the order of 100 meters might be needed to "overwhelm the stabilizing feedback from sedimentation." In fact, Anderson (2007) states that "at the current rate of sea-level rise, it would take several thousand years [our italics] to float the ice sheet off [its] bed." What is more, Alley et al. say that the ice sheet's extra thickness up-glacier from the grounding-line wedge will tend to stabilize it against "any other environmental perturbation."

With respect to the range of applicability of the findings of Anandakrishnan et al. and Alley et al., Anderson notes that "grounding-zone wedges are common features on the continental shelf, including the Ross Sea Shelf," and that "all ice streams of the Siple Coast have an anomalous elevation and stop at the grounding line," which leads him to conclude that "this mechanism for stabilization of the grounding-line is likely to be widespread." Consequently, Anderson concludes that "sea-level rise may not destabilize ice sheets as much as previously feared," which in turn suggests that sea level itself may not rise as fast or as high as previously feared. So what do actual sea level data suggest?

[AMDScooter]

^^^That sounds so much like the reasoning we're given for the shamnesty bill, it makes ya wonder if this is the new standard... "Hey, the shits gonna happen sooner or later, so who cares if its wrong, as long as something might be, possibly beneficial along the way?"

Yup... they speak as if it is a forgone conclusion. Just bend over and take it...

[BlackDragon24]

^Good Find Scooter.....here is the actual article they reference, for those who are hardcore. Most of the time you just need to read the last few paragraphs to get the take home message.

If you don't subscribe to science you probably wont be able to follow the link

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../315/5818/1529

Implications for the Future

It is reasonable to conclude that, today, the EAIS is gaining some 25 Gt year–1, the WAIS is losing about 50 Gt year–1, and the GIS is losing about 100 Gt year–1. These trends provide a sea-level contribution of about 0.35 mm year–1, a modest component of the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 mm year–1. Because 50 Gt year–1 is a very recent contribution, the ice sheets made little contribution to 20th-century sea-level rise. However, what has also emerged is that the losses are dominated by ice dynamics. Whereas past assessments (47) considered the balance between accumulation and ablation, the satellite observations reveal that glacier accelerations of 20 to 100% have occurred over the past decade. The key question today is whether these accelerations may be sustained, or even increase, in the future.

The question is difficult because the causes of the instabilities have yet to be established. The geological record (48) suggests that some 10,000 years ago, the Amundsen sector of the WAIS extended only 100 km farther than today, confining the present rate of retreat to more recent times, and the drawdown of the Amundsen sector ice streams has been linked (49) to a recent trigger in the ocean. A comparable argument may be extended to the thinning glaciers in East Antarctica and Greenland, which are also marine terminated. Equally, there is no direct evidence of a warming of the Amundsen Sea, and it has long been held possible that the marine-terminated WAIS, and the Amundsen sector in particular, may be geometrically unstable (50), and the retreating East Antarctica streams have a similar geometry (Fig. 2A). In Greenland, where summer melting is widespread and increasing, Global Positioning System measurements have shown the melting to affect flow velocity in the ice sheet interior (26), introducing the possibility that increased surface meltwater is reaching the bed and accelerating the ice flow to the ocean.

The discovery that particular ice streams and glaciers are dominating ice sheet mass losses means that today our ability to predict future changes is limited. Present numerical models capture neither the details of actual ice streams nor, in Greenland, those of hydraulic connections between the surface and the bed. In addition, the detailed mechanics at the grounding line still remain to be fully worked out. In consequence, the view that the changing sea-level contribution of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in the 21st century will be both small and negative as a result of accumulating snow in Antarctica [e.g., –0.05 mm year–1 in (1)] is now uncertain.

Because our predictive ability is limited, continued observation is essential. The satellite record clearly identifies the particular ice streams and glaciers whose evolution is of greatest concern. The causes of their instability need to be identified. Their detailed basal topography, their basal hydrology, and the details of the interaction with their surrounding shelf seas need to be established. Numerical models that capture the detailed dynamics of these glaciers and their hydrology are required. Of equal importance are meteorological and ice core measurements that will increase confidence in forecast models of accumulation and ablation fluctuations, because to a considerable extent these limit interpretations of the short satellite records. There is a great deal that the International Polar Year may achieve.

[AMDScooter]

Kind of a LOOOONG way from that 23ft. claim eh? Upon rereading the article I cannot even determine who is actually making that claim. Who was the author that penned the reuters article? Not only do they not list a source for their claims.. they do not list who wrote the article... Am I missing something?

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ Hey I don't know the math... but would love to see a fear inspiring model of the planet with 23 feet of extra water on the ocean. Just for curiosity's sake... to see how far inland it would cover in different parts of the world.

I can't imagine there being enough water on the planet to do such a thing, but it would be entertaining to see, nonetheless.

Isn't that one of the bogus claims put out by hier miester de global warming, Gore?

[AMDScooter]

^^^ Hey I don't know the math... but would love to see a fear inspiring model of the planet with 23 feet of extra water on the ocean. Just for curiosity's sake... to see how far inland it would cover in different parts of the world.

I can't imagine there being enough water on the planet to do such a thing, but it would be entertaining to see, nonetheless.

Isn't that one of the bogus claims put out by hier miester de global warming, Gore?

^^^ That would be cool... lets have it once and for all.. worst case scenario. I'd love to see the model that projected what would happen if every flake of ice/snow on the planet were to melt... today.

I thought Gore has been saying the sea levels will rise like 100ft. Eh... 23ft.. an inch and a half... why split hairs..

[kbohip]

Well I certainly believe that our actions are shaping our climate in some sense or another....

But even if you don't believe in global warming as a man-made phenomenon, the idea of Greenland melting into the sea is quite alarming to me....especially that whole pesky little 23 foot increase in sea level thing. Especially since it appears that it is melting much fater than it "should" be.

Well I guess look at it this way Dutch.....if all that coastal property is under water, it should drive your property value way up

23 foot higher sea level 'eh? Damn, that still leaves another 6,577' to go for me until I can charge an insanely high price for my house and sip margaritas on the beach.

[AMDScooter]

23 foot higher sea level 'eh? Damn, that still leaves another 6,577' to go for me until I can charge an insanely high price for my house and sip margaritas on the beach.

But you'd own beach front property at that point... why sell??

[kbohip]

^^^ That would be cool... lets have it once and for all.. worst case scenario. I'd love to see the model that projected what would happen if every flake of ice/snow on the planet were to melt... today.

I thought Gore has been saying the sea levels will rise like 100ft. Eh... 23ft.. an inch and a half... why split hairs..

Ever see the opening scene from the movie "Waterworld"? Apparently Hollywood subscribes to the "Noah's Ark" theory in that the world would be completely covered with water if the polar ice sheets melted completely.