iceberg the size of Manhattan breaks off Greenland

Joe Nation
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2012 09:17 am
It bothers the hell out of my friend with the condo on the Gulf Coast of Florida with the 4.8 feet of elevation.

Thunderstorms make the island crisscrossed with little rivers for hours afterward.
Some day the water is just going to stay.

Joe(Okay, I'm going to take the canoe to the parking lot.)Nation
0 Replies
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2012 07:04 pm
July in U.S. Was Hottest Ever in History Books

0 Replies
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2012 11:11 am
Aug. 10, 2012
Greenland's ice sheet thinning at uneven pace, scientists find
By NIKA SOON-SHIONG | Los Angeles Times


The Greenland ice sheet, the second-largest ice body in the world, has lost its ice in fits and starts - with short bursts of dramatic ice loss separated by periods of stability, a study has found.

Scientists predict that if Greenland's entire ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise more than 20 feet. But though recent observations have shown dramatic losses, they cannot easily predict what the pace of future loss is likely to be.

One of the issues is how far the data go back. Scientists track ice mass patterns via satellites in space, but such images date only to 2000, making predictions tentative. The new study, published Aug. 3 in Science, extended the time period for which Greenland's ice can be observed by using photographs taken from airplanes dating back to the 1980s.

"When people took those photographs way back then, they weren't looking for changes in anything. They didn't realize things were changing," said study coauthor John Wahr, a physicist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Kurt Kjaer, science director at the Natural History Museum of Denmark, and colleagues used the aerial data to create a map of ice sheet elevations in Northwest Greeland. This was done by matching pairs of photographs of the same area of ice taken from slightly different angles to create a three-dimensional image. The scientists then used satellite data to extend the record up to the present day.

Using these digitally produced models of the area's elevation, the scientists found high amounts of ice thinning - up to 150 meters (about 490 feet) in some places - had occurred on the ice sheet during the last 25 years.

But the thinning had occurred in starts and stops, they noticed, with one significant period of loss occurring from 1985-1993 and another event of even more loss of ice from 2005-2010. In between the two events there was no significant ice loss, although the ice sheet did not grow back to pre-1985 levels.

The results suggest that the ice sheet can stabilize itself after periods of ice loss, the authors said.

"We are able to show that the recent dramatic ice loss observed after 2003 is not unique, and that similar mass loss also happened prior to the recent warming," Kjaer wrote in an email. Scientists need to learn more about the causes of these dramatic events to create more accurate long-term Greenland ice-loss predictions, he said.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 06:02 am
Number of people DIRECTLY killed by climate change each year over the past 1 million Years:

Number of people killed by other causes over the last million years: 107,602,707,791

You can kind of see why there are ALSO other things to worry about. Sure climate change affects diseases and all kinds of stuff, but you can't attribute a direct number.
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 02:35 pm
I guess if you want to consider drought not a cause of death or maybe drought isn't a result of climate change.

But then call me an unhealthy skeptic.
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2012 07:45 pm
A death from drought is a real stretch, that's like saying we know because this area was drier than normal that that person would have water in a normal pattern. The way people stretch the GW cause/effect lists to be supposed consensus to cover everything under the sun is not a theorem, it is a hypothesis. What really matters is the statistics, are the statistics questionable, some are. The ice melt stuff has been so inaccurate it has been ridiculous, the temperature shifts are small and not related to micro-climates or droughts in one area. It is too early to keep singling out one area to coincide with the results of climate change.

The consensus evidence is global patterns, not one specific area. Trillions of dollars are at stake, when money enters into things it creates BIAS. Climate Change is the biggest single influx of money into a scientific research field in the history of science. This creates reason enough to be skeptical.

If the results of the published scientists correlated more precisely with the cause/effect outcomes of the results in a long-term basis, then it is no longer predictive statistics but becomes evidence as a theorem. If you cannot prove something with the scientific method, it cannot be used as part of the argument. The only thing proven with the scientific method so far is the globally measured temperatures, and maybe the carbon relationship (but I just now started looking into it).
0 Replies

Related Topics

Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2023 at 11:04:52