Greenland glacier hits record speed

reply to post by VoidHawk


That is why I don't comment on individual weather events instead I look at overall climate. The OP is a result of climate.

STFU about global warming. Yes, clearly our Earth is changing but at the same time we have only been here for a short amount of time. I believe the Earth is just going through it's natural cycles and people are prospering off it with the whole global warming thing. Ugh.

VoidHawk

Rezlooper
the unbelievable weather the UK has been suffering through.

I'm in the UK and its wet, very wet, its windy too.
I'm approaching 60 and I can remember many winters just like this one, unfortunately most people dont bother to use their memory, they just stare at the box of lies and let it tell them what to believe.
There's nothing out of the ordinary going on, its all quite normal.

In holland we got weather they say only happens 1 time each 100 year (so they say) because of a low pressure area above Scotland and England which is there seemingly for a long time causing your heavy rains and windy/stormy weather.

It's nice for us though over here because of this.

I don't think I have experienced myself such a mild winter, I had to clean the window of my car from ice 1 time and not 1 day of freezing at day time.

But yea just normal. Didn't I heard UK officials said they had not enough money to fight flooding? And it seems you guys get flooding the last few years allot (which could be the new normal).

New storm expected to bring floods to parts of UK that have escaped so far
www.theguardian.com...

reply to post by samuel1990


So you do not believe we have had ANY effect on the climate by releasing millions of years of stored carbon back into our atmosphere in an extremely short amount of time while simultaneously destroying large portions of the carbon scrubbers from the planet?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Correct .

reply to post by Rezlooper


You might like this article to get a bit of a historical perspective on those scary pic's from that storm .wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by reject


From your link:

The Greenland Ice Sheet has seen record melting in recent years and would raise sea levels 6m were it all to vanish.

6 meters, er? But in how much time?

We know that from 2000 to 2010 this glacier alone increased sea level by about 1mm.

So it takes 10 years for it to rise ocean by 1 millimetre.

Extrapolation: at this rate, it'll takes an additional 60,000 years for it to rise ocean by 6 meters.

They call that "imminent doom"?

reply to post by Rezlooper

the fact that the southern areas of England are sinking will mean the sea levels there would be rising .

this is the reason that they built the Thames barriers in the first place.

hey this was posted 5 days ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by swanne

swanne
reply to post by reject

 

From your link:

The Greenland Ice Sheet has seen record melting in recent years and would raise sea levels 6m were it all to vanish.

6 meters, er? But in how much time?

We know that from 2000 to 2010 this glacier alone increased sea level by about 1mm.

So it takes 10 years for it to rise ocean by 1 millimetre.

Extrapolation: at this rate, it'll takes an additional 60,000 years for it to rise ocean by 6 meters.

They call that "imminent doom"?

edit on 9-2-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

Conveniently, you didn't bother to copy the sentence that comes immediately after it, right?

Why? Is it because the obvious acceleration invalidates your reasoning?

"We know that from 2000 to 2010 this glacier alone increased sea level by about 1mm. With the additional speed it likely will contribute a bit more than this over the next decade," said Ian Joughin.

Global warming is picking up steam.

In summer, the Jakobshavn Glacier - widely thought to have spawned the iceberg that sank the Titanic - is moving about four times faster than it was in the 1990s.

But they added that even the annually averaged speed-up over the past couple of years is nearly three times what it was in the 1990s.

I'm sure you're well aware of the huge amount of the greenhouse gas methane trapped by ice, right?

This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks — like the melting of the methane-rich permafrost of Arctic Canada.

reply to post by VoidHawk

VoidHawk
And when was the last time that glacier moved at "record speed" ?

And offering fictitious movies is hardly evidence is it!

Did I say the movie was evidence of global warming? No.

I mentioned it as a source of information.

It's based on global warming scenarios that includes polar vortex as a consequence which global warming naysayers use to argue against it.

reply to post by Indigent


ok, I'm sorry indigent but I really did use the search function.

Mods, feel free to lock this thread.

But they added that even the annually averaged speed-up over the past couple of years is nearly three times what it was in the 1990s.

So, apply the acceleration to the extrapolation. 1990s to 2010s: 30 years. Each 30 years, it triples. And each years, now, ocean rises 1 millimetre.

At this rate:

-2040: +4 mm

-2070: +12 mm

-2100: +36 mm

-2130: +108 mm

-2160: +324 mm

-2190: +972 mm (about 1 m)

-2210: +2,916 mm (about 3 m)

Get the point?

reject
Mods, feel free to lock this thread.

Because further debates inside this thread might, as you put it, "invalidate your reasoning", eh?

13th Zodiac
reply to post by reject

 

Not this garbage being rolled out again. It's Greenland right? It's not bloody Whiteland. How do you think Greenland got it's name? God this garbage is stupid, is anyone of the warmers over the age of 20? Your metorologist can't even get this weeks weather correct, let alone the next hundred years. Pathetic.

really? I know how it got it's name, and it appears from your post, that you do not. you seem to think that at the time it was named, it was green and lush. bzzzzzzzzz...wrong answer.

c'mon...who cares about this. no one on ATS has the power to change anything related to this...so why bother?...nobody is going to listen to anything said here, because this is a conspiracy site...Christ, they won't even listen to scientists that have been studying this for decades. and, let's say it isn't true about man's involvement in global warming....there still isn't anyone around to spend the money and time to defend us against a naturally occurring warming/cooling event. it's a fool's journey to argue about it.

Some of the problems in some of these areas might be maintenance,

en.wikipedia.org...

People have been draining the area since before the Domesday Book. In the Middle Ages, the monasteries of Glastonbury, Athelney and Muchelney were responsible for much of the drainage.

The people that live in this area have been calling for dredging, although, this,

It supports a vast variety of plant and bird species and is an important feeding ground for birds. The Levels and Moors include 32 Sites of Special Scientific Interest, of which 12 are also Special Protection Areas. The area has been extensively studied for its biodiversity and heritage, and has a growing tourism industry.

The Environment Agency carried out studies which suggested that dredging the two main rivers in the Somerset Levels could have significantly reduced the duration and depth of flooding in the worst-hit areas.

But work was stalled because of concerns from bodies including Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

urbanrim.org.uk...

example,

There are almost 30,000 peer-reviewed studies on global warming since 2008. There is no way I'm reading that many but if you flip through the abstracts of some of the most recent you will find that more scientists are seeing that what we put into the atmosphere matters.

You would also see that the way journalism reports this issue has the greatest impact on what people understand about this issue. In some Countries they don't know anything about it but rather get their information by seeing changes in the weather. We on the other hand have tons of resources at our fingertips to move beyond how a journalist interprets the findings. I say read the science directly rather than using the middle man. Filter out political beliefs and then see where the consensus lies.

From what I gather, there is an agreement that as of 2013 there was a shift in salinity in arctic bottom waters, and global sea level rise has been substantial in comparison to the pre-industrial era. While 2 mm per year may be small to us, scientists look at it by comparing it to past samples. This has an impact on weather. I don't think the argument lies in whether it is happening but rather what is causing it to happen so quickly. Of course - it's a contentious topic because of how they measure it and the models they use. I think satellite measurements are probably pretty valid and reliable. I also think comparing salinity to previous years is likely reliable and valid. In my thinking - if the same model is used over time and changes are seen doesn't this tell us changes are happening? I'm not seeing much dispute on changes regardless of models anyway. It's a matter of interpretation of where it will go from here. We will find out with or without their studies. I for one feel the changes.

swanne

But they added that even the annually averaged speed-up over the past couple of years is nearly three times what it was in the 1990s.

So, apply the acceleration to the extrapolation. 1990s to 2010s: 30 years. Each 30 years, it triples. And each years, now, ocean rises 1 millimetre.

At this rate:

-2040: +4 mm

-2070: +12 mm

-2100: +36 mm

-2130: +108 mm

-2160: +324 mm

-2190: +972 mm (about 1 m)

-2210: +2,916 mm (about 3 m)

Get the point?

reject
Mods, feel free to lock this thread.

Because further debates inside this thread might, as you put it, "invalidate your reasoning", eh?

edit on 9-2-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

No, you're the one who doesn't get the point.

Annual means yearly, i.e. every single year the average acceleration of melt is three times what it was back in the 90s in just the last couple years.

I don't know if what you did was a deliberate attempt to twist the truth.

reply to post by reject


I think he honestly got mixed up. I was looking at how he came up with 30 years in a 20 something time frame.

No one would purposely screw up calculations that bad. At least I hope they wouldn't.

Old English saying " Britain does not have a climate, just weather" With the UK weather arriving from the North, South, and West, and in the winter, from the East, I suppose the country would seem to have some strange, weird, violent weather at times.
6th Feb. report in climate depot state unprecedented 7 foot snowfall in Iran, 145 towns loose power and water.
A$ 7 billion paid by Aussies in carbon tax, reduced CO2 by 0.03%, no change in temperature.
Many more worrying headlines to think about.

reject
I don't know if what you did was a deliberate attempt to twist the truth.

You sound so immature, you know that, right? When I wrote the message, I did so in a hurry, and confused one of the phrases. I'm with dyslexia, but please show no respect.

Oaky. So what you are saying, is that Earth will face an impending doom from global warming. That suddenly oceans will rise 6 meters in what, a decade, according to your "acceleration"?

It's been decades that I've watched you global warmers predict the end of the world. I was so impressed when Al Gore told us that absolutely no scientists in the World denied Global Warming, that science knows it all, that everything would be gone in a decade. Now, a decade later, I'm still waiting.

When there is a warmer period, Global Warmer claim that it's caused by GW theory. When there is a cooler period, Global Warmers claim it's caused by GW theory. There's no winning with you guys.

There are plenty of independent scientists out there who present evidences which contradicts anthropogenic global warming theory. But their evidences are rejected by a narrow-minded committee who only cherry picks data in its favor, add degrees to the trend chart to "compensate" raw data which don't agree, and calls everyone else a "republican".

This is one of the greatest offence to the scientific method.