97% of Greenland's ice sheet surface melted in mid-July

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
I await the new iceage with open arms..
right after the solarmax vaporizes everything

You think that will slow down or shut down the Gulf Stream Current and we'll get a "Day After" scenario? What are your plans for solarmax?

with the way this world is currently heading,, I'd say a shut down of the current could begin
Like the Movie? i would say Hollywood may have that answer
and as for the solarmax,, Ive got food, water, and alternate backup power to get me through the winter
if need be..

Originally posted by swoopaloop
This is a normal event. It happens about once every 150 years.

Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.

Source

The source you quoted also says this:

"When we see melt in places that we haven't seen before, at least in a long period of time, it makes you sit up and ask what's happening?" NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said. It's a big signal, the meaning of which we're going to sort out for years to come."

Source

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Now if it were Iceland then I would be concerned. Cause everyone knows that Iceland is real icy.

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are

Originally posted by swoopaloop
This is a normal event. It happens about once every 150 years.

Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.

Source

The source you quoted also says this:

"When we see melt in places that we haven't seen before, at least in a long period of time, it makes you sit up and ask what's happening?" NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said. It's a big signal, the meaning of which we're going to sort out for years to come."

Source

Good job!

This article fails to emphasize the context in that quote. It could be taken in the context of "ZOMG THE WORLD IS DEH FUKCED" Or it could be taken in the context of "This is a naturally occurring phenomenon that we have yet to understand". I wonder which context is more accurate.

Originally posted by swoopaloop
This is a normal event. It happens about once every 150 years.

Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.

Source

Thank you for being the voice of reason among the global warming hysteria crowd.

The poles on mars did not go thru major reduction due to human causes, it was solar.

The whole solar system has been warming.

Mars melting points to solar cause - National Geogrphic

The whole global warming thing was proven to be a fraud by the Hadley Climate Unit scandal too.

Their emails showed they were lying sacks of dung.

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

Originally posted by swoopaloop
This is a normal event. It happens about once every 150 years.

Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.

Source

Thank you for being the voice of reason among the global warming hysteria crowd.

The poles on mars did not go thru major reduction due to human causes, it was solar.

The whole solar system has been warming.

Mars melting points to solar cause - National Geogrphic

The whole global warming thing was proven to be a fraud by the Hadley Climate Unit scandal too.

Their emails showed they were lying sacks of dung.

You're welcome

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


I'm curious to how that much fresh water will impact the Atlantic Ocean and currents and weather patterns. That is a large volume of fresh water entering a saline body of water.

Could it speed things up?

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Here is this ... spaceweather.com... and just to be sure you know what they are talking about and also link to ... the global eruption in 2010. science.nasa.gov...

Climate is getting hairy! Lol

Maybe the ice will refreeze in four days!!

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


I'm not sure the voice of reason is well established yet.

From the story you linked, Page 2:

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Not a good start.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

Why couldn't they both be wobbling in a way as to cause warming?

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface. He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

This is where I gotta say he sounds like a quack. The greenhouse effect is well established. It's definitely part of the equation.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

Doesn't this entirely wipe out the theory at this point? If it's been dropping for 20+ years, why are we seeing this melt right now? Is it a long slow drop, mixed with a 150 year spike?

it's a normal event. however, if it happens again anytime soon then we should worry A LOT. for now we can hope the ice freezes again..... wait and see.

i'm not a denier but this event has been posted all over as being something completely shocking when it's not.

i fully believe in man advanced climate change and we won't know if this is something to worry about until some more time passes. there are plenty of other things regarding the climate to worry about....

reply to post by unityemissions


Ice core data shows IPCC has lied

The doom and gloom espoused by Mr Dyer, the World Wildlife Fund, Greens and others stem from two sources. The first is the hockey-stick graphs used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the second is from computer modelling of climate. The hockey-stick graphs are those showing 1000 years of slightly cooling temperatures followed by a sharp upswing in the past 150 years. These graphs have now been thoroughly discredited despite the authors' attempts to hide their data. It was a story of appalling statistical methodology, cherry-picked data and deliberate falsification. The aim of the scientists involved was to make out that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age were local North European events. It was impossible for them to blame the 1976-97 warming on CO2 if the MWP was warmer than now and global. Data collected from around the world, including excellent ice-core data from the Antarctic, show that these climatic events were indeed global.

Unity I know you are hardcore behind the whole Al Gore band wagon, so I don't expect to make
any headway with you even when i show you the Hadley Climate Unit scandal info showing
they were lying their collective rears off.

Hadley Climate Unit exposed by hackers

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

No mention of it on climate depot yet (an american weather/global warming site) so I'll just wait and see, couple of weeks ago Shell oil was complaining that the sea ice was too thick for them to start test drilling!!!(In the arctic)

reply to post by swoopaloop


SO in 1889 it melted/surface thawed in 4 DAYS. I highly doubt in 1889, 97 PERCENT surface thawed in 4 days.They must be really good at reading the ice core data to discriminate to that degree.
Kudos PX.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

I'm curious to how that much fresh water will impact the Atlantic Ocean and currents and weather patterns. That is a large volume of fresh water entering a saline body of water.

Could it speed things up?

Some say that there is evidence that these kinds of events have preceded all previous ice ages.

Originally posted by Mister1k
reply to post by swoopaloop

 

SO in 1889 it melted/surface thawed in 4 DAYS. I highly doubt in 1889, 97 PERCENT surface thawed in 4 days.They must be really good at reading the ice core data to discriminate to that degree.
Kudos PX.

Yes, I'm sure the satellite coverage wasn't quite as extensive back in 1889 !

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Just had an update from the daily galaxy, seems the ice sheet is melting, star and flag for the op. must be damn hot for a mile of ice to melt that quickly.

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

Here is this ... spaceweather.com... and just to be sure you know what they are talking about and also link to ... the global eruption in 2010. science.nasa.gov...

Climate is getting hairy! Lol

Maybe the ice will refreeze in four days!!

edit on 24-7-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the links MamaJ! That article on the Dec 13 2010 solar eruption is interesting. It certainly doesn't jive with what another poster said above about the Sun declining in radiance - it has been super active lately. Plus our magnetosphere shield is weakening.

I think you saw the daily 2MIN news youtube link, right? The guy covers much of what is going on with an update everyday.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


No problem, here is what the esa site has to say. If you search the site you can see, there is no debate anymore regarding climate change. www.esa-icesheets-cci.org...

There is a global interest in understanding the dynamics of ice sheets and their response to climate changes. This need has emerged from a need to understand the consequences of present and future changes of ice sheet mass in order to predict their contribution to the global and regional sea level change (when the ice sheets melts, sea level will drop in vicinity of the ice sheets). One of the uncertainties in predicting future sea level is that the ice sheet flow models have not yet been developed at a sufficient level of detail to take the effects of fast flowing ice streams into account. Furthermore, the physical processes at the base of an ice sheet and the relation to basal hydrology has not yet been fully addressed and implemented into models. The issue of basal conditions and their relation to fast flowing ice streams is a critical point in understanding the ice sheet response to global warming. Numerical models of the ice sheet are inherently complex. Model simulations require large computer resources and the capacity of the computing systems implies constraints on the possible space and time resolution. This leads to the following situation: Large-scale ice sheet models are presently running on a lower resolution than available satellite data, e.g. surface elevation and velocity. Thus they are not using the full capacity of satellite based data in validations. These models generally need long time series to understand the effect of large scale changes in climate and precipitation. To understand the processes controlling changes in ice flow and outlet glaciers, it is necessary to have access to high-resolution observations. Recently new higher-order models, sometimes nested in lower order models, have been developed to address this issue.

And of course the debate is whether its man or the sun causing the trapping of greenhouse gases. Also, check this page out, there is so much more than what I quoted here! www.newscientist.com...

Analysis of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica shows a very strong correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperatures. But what causes what? Proponents of solar influence point out that that temperatures sometimes change first. This, they say, suggest that warming causes rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not vice versa. What is actually happening is a far more complicated interaction (see Ice cores show CO2 only rose after the start of warm periods).

reply to post by MamaJ


Thanks for the links again, interesting reads!
So where do you stand on global warming? Man made or caused by some other natural phenomenon or cycle?

I think the New Scientist article leaves out an important point, that the Sun's activity can remain level yet here on earth we can receive a big increase in the Sun's energy through the weakening of the magnetosphere.