Greenland Ice Melting Five Times the rate it was in the mid-1990s

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by SeekingDepth

Your first link is for the same study the OP is talking about.

Your second, about the Maldives, is mostly due to OVER PUMPING the minute groundwater reserves, directly related to the tripling of their POPULATION. They are pumping so much that rainwater can't replenish it quick enough and therefore ALLOWING, or CAUSING salt water intrusion. Now with that said, I am not saying sea levels haven't risen or aren't still rising, however the reasons for these types of islands issues are deeper than sea levels themselves. Here is a good primer about atolls, and if you research them elsewhere, (other than my link) you'll find this accurate.

Here's another one, but with the AGW scare "flavor" added. They essentially say the same thing.

Also ask yourself why they built brand new huge resorts on these islands if they'll be under the waves as soon as predicted. The REAL reason is, atolls rise and fall WITH the sea levels, as sea levels dictate the height of the atoll above sea level. Don't think they don't KNOW THIS! The "flooding" they splatter all over the media of these atolls are due to extreme high ASTRONOMICAL tides, which obviously occur quickly. Pure propaganda.

The period also saw the country complete the first and second phase of a demographic transition, in which the population growth rate had peaked at 3.4% in 1985 before declining to 1.9% in 2000. The population today has tripled since independence in 1965 and doubled since 1978.

All those "new" people had to get their freshwater from somewhere....

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

The main point here is Greenland is experiencing a natural change in its environment and further study is needed before we jump the gun screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!".

No the main point here is this has been going on for decades, not one summer event you can conveniently try to marginalize everything into so you can then blame it on a "natural" heat dome.

Furthermore, this has been studied "further". For 150 years already. That's how far the science of greenhouse forcing, aka anthropogenic global warming goes.

And that's what it all boils down to: It has nothing to do with sitting around, waiting for ice to melt before we can decide the sky falling.

It has to do with basic, axiomatic physics that tell us in no uncertain terms greenhouse gases are powerful variables that affect our climate. Taking a wait and see approach for something that is otherwise easily confirmed in unambiguous 150 year-old math is just the last resort for hard-headed but easily manipulated sticks in the mud - who would rather listen to convenient rhetoric spoonfed to them by political ideologues and oil company stooges, rather than face up to the truth of the hard to digest scientific facts.

So while you're waiting around for Greenland to completely melt before you can decide something's definitely up, the science itself has become coherent enough on so many different levels now that it's actually, literally, determined the sky is NOT falling - in fact it's actually climbing. And guess what - this is yet another sign of the man made influence in global warming:

Scientists Discover Global Warming Linked To Increase In Tropopause Height Over Past Two Decades

You can read about many more of them here: The human fingerprint in global warming

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:28 PM

Originally posted by poet1b

A newly released study finds that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are disappearing three times faster than they were two decades ago, the latest evidence supporting the existence of global warming.

The study was published in the journal Science and is considered an extremely accurate portrayal of ice melts in these polar regions. According to the paper’s authors, the rapid polar ice melting has caused an increase in sea level that may become problematic to low coastal regions.

Perhaps the most alarming data found by the researchers was in Greenland where the ice was melting an estimated five times the rate it was in the mid-1990s. Melt from Greenland accounted for a whopping two-thirds of the polar ice melt.
Shepherd estimates that the data compiled in the new study is two to three times more reliable than previous studies on melting ice and rising sea-level.

This next quote is the one that gets me.

She expects sea level to move up the coast by at least 40 inches in the next 90 years.

It seems to me that they have been predicting a rise of about a meter in the next hundred years for about a decade now. If ice is melting 5 times faster than in the ninties, then wouldn't we at least be seeing a five times increase in the rise of the ocean levels? It seems that we should be expecting 200 inches in the next 90 years.

From everything I have read on the subject, the rate of global warming is actually continuing to accelerate,

We are now, where we were predicted to be in 2025 or later just a little over a decade ago,

Four years ago no one was talking about methane geysers, or thermal expansion of the oceans. In the next few years, maybe four or five, from everything I see, we are going to be seeing massive changes starting to take place.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 2/12/2012 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

These dire predictions and claims that the Greenland ice sheets are melting have been happening since before the turn of the century. Is all the melting and sea level rise going to happen on year 90? Because after 15% of the time has already passed us there has been zero sea level rise, and the ice sheets are not gone, nor have they receded in any significant amount, nor has the global mean temperature risen.

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:03 PM
reply to post by mc_squared

Typical of you MC. If the info is contrary to your belief, attack a messenger of the contrary info, even if the source is NASA. Again typical.

We know sea levels rose/are rising. The trend is also decreasing, and we're heading into quite likely, a very long period of cooling. So give it a few more years of a cold PDO, an AMO that will likely go into a cold phase in the next ten or so years, and solar activity that is nearing rock bottom, even so close to peak cycle. Then let's talk about the forecasts from more and more solar physicists of a likely Dalton type minimum, or less likely but very possible due to the LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about the sun, a Maunder type minimum. This is also why they cranked up the press releases on AGW to try a final push to get the sheep to go along with a carbon tax, because they KNOW cooling, probably severe, is in the pipeline. Once in place, a carbon tax will be virtually impossible to remove.

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by bronco73
there has been zero sea level rise, and the ice sheets are not gone, nor have they receded in any significant amount, nor has the global mean temperature risen.


Sea level:

Ice loss:


But hey, this is the internet, not a peer-reviewed journal (which we all know is just propaganda) - so toss whatever you want at the wall and hope it sticks.

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by wlf15y

Yeah whatever, contrary "beliefs" blah blah blah - the same old empty schpiel you guys like to scamper the conversation back to every time you start getting your *** kicked by the FACTS.

It doesn't matter if the source is NASA. It matters that it's cherry picked from all the contrary NASA evidence you conveniently tune out in the hopes of creating some illusion of false-balance.

Meanwhile sea level rise is not decreasing (see above). Ice loss is accelerating (see the OP). Global temperatures continue to set records despite diminishing solar output. Deal with it.

I've watched you guys enter these discussions SO many times huffing and puffing arrogant rhetoric about "propaganda" and "religion" and talking down to every member who doesn't have the same experience with it that you do.

Then when someone shows up who does, and starts pointing out how completely full of it you are - you bust out the tiny violin and start playing the victim because you apparently hold opposing "beliefs" now.

I have no problem with opposing beliefs. My issue is with opposing bullsh**, and that's all you guys ever bring to this discussion. So I will call you out on it every time, I could care less how much of a big insensitive meanie it makes me look.

At least I'm honest about it. You are a complete hypocrite for trying to lecture others about propaganda and then using wattsupwiththat as your source. Sheesh.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by mc_squared

Wish I could give you infinite stars for that.

I have been hearing the same lines from the deniers for years and they always want more studies and when those studies back up that climate change is happening then they want to wait and see. They always want to put off dealing with the problem or cherry-pick data and in some cases flat out lie. It makes me wonder what their mental malfunction is.

I also wonder why it always seem to be new accounts that spread disinformation.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:43 AM

Originally posted by mc_squared

Here, let me correct that for you.

Here's how we view it:

When solar radiation has decreased and volcanic activity has increased, global temperatures suddenly plummet, often within weeks or months.


Feel free to believe in Gore's hockey stick if you want to... you know, something proven to be propaganda by the leaked emails of the climate "scientists" who are deliberately faking. It's not like their jobs and funding depend on propagating this lie.... oh wait...

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:28 AM
reply to post by pianopraze

Oh wait climate gate has been debunked but climate deniers keep bringing it up and ignore that there was nothing to those claims. There was no evidence stating that there was falsified information.

Look it up. Fact check it. Climate gate was debunked long ago.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:53 AM
TPTB are doing this in hopes to sell the cleanest water in the world..

no joke, saw it on a documentry 6 months ago on PBS

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:44 AM
Now how about you post some relevant documents of CFC and GhG levels so people can see a correlation?
How do we know the warming isn't due to geothermal activity?

150 years isnt a very long time to base data off of considering this planet is at least 4 billion years old.

for all we know we could be headed for a small ice age in the near future as many of these patterns are cyclical aka. 25 thousand years 10 thousand years 1 thousand years 500 250 100 etc. the graph posted above shows that temperatures were swinging even when natural emissions from the earth were taking place.
edit on 12/3/2012 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:46 AM
So all I am left with after this back and forth argument is this question:

Is Greenland finally going to be GREEN?!?

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
So all I am left with after this back and forth argument is this question:

Is Greenland finally going to be GREEN?!?

No it will be a desert. Glow Ball warming at it's finest.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by bronco73

How would it become a desert? It has AMPLE precipitation.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

If Greenland gets to be green, it will be the first time.

Some people sure get suckered easily by marketing techniques.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by mc_squared

It's not worth the time pointing out to the GW deniers the scientific evidence that proves them wrong.

If anything, the reports on GW are under reporting the changes. It seems that rate of the acceleration of GW is not being considered.

The odds of another Sandy hitting Manhatten in the next few years are pretty high, and will likely have a greater impact, not to mention a great deal of damage to a lot of very pricey real estate. The impact of GW is only going to get worse. I wonder if the people in charge of the finance industry are already taking steps to deal with likely future increased impacts of GW.

If, in the next 15 years GW has increased another 5 times current rates, and from the data I have seen it will be more than 5 times, the impact of GW will force major changes, far beyond what we are currently seeing.

People want to think that the major impact of GW are not going to be seen for another century, but I see major changes happening now, and they are going be far worse within the next decade.

edit on 3-12-2012 by poet1b because: Add last statement.

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by wlf15y

2008 is too a long time ago.. every year is warmer than the last. every decade has been warmer than the last.. so if its getting warmer, which is undeniable.. obviously ice is going to melt quicker.. i don't need science to prove to me that GW is real.. i see it with my own eyes.. i just remember that present time is warmer than it was when i was growing up in the 80s.. year after year its getting warmer.. and the warmer temperatures today are becoming the new "normal"...

and to me, its too much of a coincidence that this warming occurs at the very exact time man is emitting all this co2 into the atmosphere. its very difficult to separate these two facts.. and the warmer it gets the more co2 is being emitted.. every year an additional 100 million people are born onto this planet.. only increasing energy usage... thus tilting the balance more of what 'nature' can handle...

i dont' see how this is propaganda b/c Man is very significant.. we change our environment all the time.. if we can put a hole in the ozone layer in just 30 years the size of Europe using Hairspray you bet that we can change our climate.

man has done more in the past 100 years than anytime in history and we just have no idea what can happen by toying with the planet... none. its just goes to show how naive and stupid humans still are.. we pollute, over fish, we are very destructive and we rarely learn from past mistakes... i know people out there who deny GW or man made GW aren't spitting on the environment in general but you should still consider that GW may effect every living species on this planet!!

change for the environment is a good thing.. no one is forcing you to do anything.. you can still drive your car and spend $5 a gallon of gas... if anything denying in GW is only bowing to the energy companies.. so its a win-win. you can deny all you want but inevitably the change is coming... with dwindling resources its coming.. as this will also lead to other energy technologies.. fossil fuels have got us here, its time to get off the bandwagon to other sources.. they have reached their limit!

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by smarterthanyou

Ya know what ??? You are absolutely right. and its a rather logical comment that its hard to compare the past 4 billion years to the past 100 years but it took the ozone layer what, lets say 50 million years.. actually lets say 1 million years to form.. and how long did it take man to put a hole in it the size of Europe?? just about 30 years using Hairspray. sounds pretty significant to me.. So, we can't deny two things - its getting warmer. And at the same time its getting warmer, we have changed in ways never before seen in the past 100 years.. so this 'change' is all new to us.. and if we have the science to see what temperatures were like millions of years ago and detect what other geological formations were like, or what our atmosphere was like millions of years ago etc.. we can easily theorize that man is causing the planet to warm b/c at the same time we are emitting all these pollutants into the atmosphere at undeniable fast rates.. its just a coincidence that is quite simply, stupid to ingore. its not worth the risk b/c we just don't know what may or may not happen..

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:07 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

If Greenland gets to be green, it will be the first time.

Some people sure get suckered easily by marketing techniques.

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

Ancient Greenland was green.

The history of our planetary climate cycles is quite interesting. What do you think happened to the glaciers that used to cover most of Europe and half of North America?

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by poet1b

I see the changes too and I don't need science to tell me either way.. its getting warmer. this I know.. this i can just feel outside over the past 30 years.. at the same time we are expanding our population some 100 million people every year.. thus increasing the levels of energy used..
Hurricane Sandy was the largest storm on record.. some 1,000 miles in diameter..which is double the size of the one before that which was Hurricane Irene at 525 miles in diamter and before that Katrina at about 500 miles in diamter.. no, we can't prove that GW is the cause of these storms.. the data may not just be statistically valid yet.. as in there aren't enough "data points" to make a conclusion.. but honestly?? I don't want to wait for us to have conclusive proof b/c it very well maybe too late beyond the point of repair!!

Man is very significant in all that we do.. we put a hole in the Ozone layer using hairspray the size of Europe in just 30 years..(I know I'm repeating this comment a few times now..) but a point I want to make is that there is now concrete proof that the changes we made to reducing the use of CFC's has already made changes to the ozone.. its slowed down and the hole shows signs of "repairing" itself.. so in the same generation we found we were the cause, we made the changes to remedy it.. the same should be done for GW!! its not worth the risk! surely no one wanted cancer so that's why really no one denied the hole in the Ozone.. but when it comes to our atmosphere in its entirety.. we are playing with fire!

let those deniers deny all they want saying its propaganda.. and still pay $5 a gallon of gas... what they fell for is marketing from energy companies.. b/c all thats doing is bowing to the pressure of the oil companies in fear of losing profits.. its a win win with changing our ways to hopefully slow down or maybe even reverse GW b/c we all get to choose other forms of renewable, sustainable and cheaper alternative forms of fuel!

new topics
top topics
<< 1    3 >>

log in