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

Originally posted by ressiv
lolll that why they called it GREENland and not WHITE land...:-)
when discouverd there was not that amound of ice as in these day's.....
nothing to worry about....

You don't know the story of Iceland/Greenland.

Once upon a time, war broke out among Norwegian Vikings. One band launched the boats and fled. They discovered a green island and settled. Afraid that their enemies might pursue them, they sent word back to Norway that their island was actually an ice-land, but that another island — more distant, larger and indeed covered by ice — was inhabitable green-land. And so the green island became Iceland, and the icy island became Greenland.

andreaskluth.org...

reply to post by swoopaloop


They are not disputing that.

This part is what has them concerned:

Three satellites show what NASA calls unprecedented melting of the ice sheet that blankets the island, starting on July 8 and lasting four days. Most of the thick ice remains. While some ice usually melts during the summer, what was unusual was that the melting happened in a flash and over a widespread area.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I don't always believe scientists over the common man, but in this case I think science trumps ignorance.

That depends who's science your using.

Are you aware of the THIRTY THOUSAND scientists who all said global warming is a deception?

Really?? Which scientists?

Are you aware that the the atmosphere used to have MANY times more co2 than it does now?

Really? How much is "Many"?

If you are going to try to debunk scientific data, try to sound more scientific.

And this is a simple way of looking at CO2.

The CO2 that is registered is an isotope, there are several of them. The CO2 burned from fossibl fuels is a different isotope than those in the atmosphere.

So when the CO2 from fossil fuels is mixed with atmosphereic CO2, the composition of the atmospheric CO2 is changed. Hence, how they know the carbon is from burning fossil fuels.

In tree ring records and ice core samples, never has the atmospheric Co2 been so low in thousands and thousands of years, And the rise of fossil fuel CO2 isotope has risen in the last....150, or the start of the industrial revolution.And change of atmospheric CO2 isotope has never been more than .03%, five times less than what we have seen in the past 150 years.

I am glad we could clear that up.

Are you aware of how the planet WILL respond if it warms too much?

I think that is the concern for most scientists.

Google the above and do some research rather than believe what they feed you.

If you don't even understand the CO2 your discussing, your the one who needs to do research.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Here's a start:

Link

One mans extremely biased view.
Did you notice the sybology at the top?

From another article:

The ice melt area went from 40 per cent of the ice sheet to 97 per cent in four days, according to NASA. Until now, the most extensive melt seen by satellites in the past three decades was about 55 per cent.

link to source

To me, this is more proof of a warm cycle just as we have had in the past. (not our past, but not all that long ago either).

So you can take comfort in this, either this is normal, and we will soon enter a cooling phase, or we will all die in a Giant sun spot explosion. Nothing you can do either way, so grab a beer, sit back and enjoy the ride.

reply to post by buster2010


I have to debunk this claim over and ovfer and over again. It is so naive, it is not even funny.

PMOD models from satellites have shown there has been no change in solar irradiance in 30 years that the satellites have been measuring.

Other records have shown not even since 1940.
"warmth' from the Sun and solar irradiance are not the same thing.

In fact, evidence points more toward a slight cooling trend.

The idea that cosmic rays can affect temperature was from a study that was sponsered by.....

oil companies.

That has been debunked by Carnegie Mellon that found that the change in cosmic rays only affect less than 30% of particles, and then, most of those particles are not big enough to affect clouds.

Im sure Al Gore would be really happy to see this .. he can now push "his" own global warming theory further!

reply to post by VoidHawk


I am still waiting to find out what scients aren't supporting global warming.

reply to post by jarjun


I love this desperate little straw man,the only one that skeptics can come up with, a movie maker from 6 years ago.

There is no doubt there is more human produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the conclusive proof that this is the only driver increasing global temperatures does not exist, that it contributes is likely, how much is again an unknown.

In my opinion the weakening magnetosphere allowing more radiation to interact with the atmoshpere, land and water probably has a much great effect.

Others have speculated magnetic influences on our planet's core have increased the radiation/heat emmanating from it, and point to widespread recent cases of albinism, where increased energy from the core reduces the expression of genes controlling pigmentation - as pigmentation is not needed in the literally dark times ahead.

Here is a great article on some misconceptions about global warming:

Global warming has been deemed a fact. However, the inconvenient truth is that humans are not causing it. Al Gore has been given poor advice. Like Darwin's theory of evolution and Big Bang cosmology, global warming by greenhouse gas emissions has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth. When in fact, science is ignorant about the source of the heat — the Sun.

Here is the article:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


Many articles on the psuedoscience of "man-made" global warming:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Articles on changes in the Sun:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


This is from one of the sites that is the most anti-PTB that exists, this is one of the few sites where you will get uncensored, unmanipulated knowledge.

Still we need to switch from fossil fuels to renewables and unclassify many interesting energy patents - who cares if the dollar dies - but please stop with the man-made global warming theories - if you think global warming is solely the result of mankind you are living in denial.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

I am still waiting to find out what scients aren't supporting global warming.

Ok, tell me, do you firmly believe that global warming is real and that man is the cause?

If your answer is yes then think about the following.

All manufacturers of goods, lets take white goods as an example, should be forced to make appliances last for a minimum of 20 years, and the manufacturers should give a warrenty for the full 20 years?
Every home in the world is buying white goods, and they are deliberatly designed to last only 5 years, if our governments were to enforce a life of 20 years for these goods then a saving of 75% on resources and energy and polution would be made.
I dont see any of the corporations/scientists who try to scare us all with global warming propaganda suggesting this, do you?
A 75% saving on resources fuel and polution is not to be sniffed at, its such a huge saving that would cure all our supposed problems. Dont you think it a little odd that the people who back global warming are the very same people who design these products to last only 5 years, forcing us to consume yet more fuel, creating more pollution, eating up more resources.

Your thoughts?

reply to post by VoidHawk


How do you know they are the same people?

reply to post by VoidHawk


profiteers dont give a crap about consequences only profit in the short term

doesnt mean that climate change is a farce even if most of the response may well be

Variations on weather does come every few hundred or so years. UK had the mini ice age in 1600/1700 where it is recorded from Celia Fiennes that most of the South was 6 months under snow.

Back to Greenland - latest research is suggesting that it was named for the obvious reason - it was green i.e. much warmer at that time. Other links here and here discuss that the temperature was warmer then

Originally posted by templar knight
Variations on weather does come every few hundred or so years. UK had the mini ice age in 1600/1700 where it is recorded from Celia Fiennes that most of the South was 6 months under snow.

Back to Greenland - latest research is suggesting that it was named for the obvious reason - it was green i.e. much warmer at that time. Other links here and here discuss that the temperature was warmer then

Did you read the thread? That is not why it was named Greenland.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

deleted.. some how got double post

Originally posted by iforget
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

profiteers dont give a crap about consequences only profit in the short term

doesnt mean that climate change is a farce even if most of the response may well be

Actualy they do give a crap, without the consumer they have nothing, and with a frazzled earth they have nothing. The reason they dont do as I suggested is because they know it all a big con.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
There is no doubt there is more human produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the conclusive proof that this is the only driver increasing global temperatures does not exist, that it contributes is likely, how much is again an unknown.

There is doubt. There were fewer trees in the past than today. With the reduction in farming between the 1700's and 2000's millions of acres have been returned to densely packed natural growth which are sequestering carbon. No one takes this in to account.

reply to post by VoidHawk


i disagree planning for sustainability is clearly lacking one only needs to look backwards at the obvious devastation we have already wreaked to see