The Greenland ice sheet is melting more than six times faster than just a decade ago. And whatever changes take place will only be reversible over many hundreds, even thousands, of years.
That is truly amazing, considering that the center of the ice sheet didn’t make it above freezing at any time this summer, and that the Petermann Glacier has grown a kilometer since alarmists got hysterical about it in 2010.
In 1940, Greenland was warmer than now and melting was nearing a catastrophe.
May 6, 1940
By far the largest number of local glaciers in north-east Greenland had receded very greatly during recent decades, and it would not be exaggerating to say that these glaciers were nearing a catastrophe.
No lie or garbage statistic is too big for the scum pushing this scam.
h/t to Tom Nelson and Marc Morano
Greenland’s climate becoming milder is bad how?
Greenland’s climate is not getting milder.
K. But if it did . . . .
That is a different discussion. I generally try to avoid unresolvable questions like that and stick with the existing data.
Any change is bad. Everything must stay exactly the same as it is as defined by those who define such things, things such as temperature for instance. Temperatures going up by too much can be disastrous. It has to be just right, not too hot or too cold, just like the 3 Bears. Scientists who have a bunch of letters after their names know what is best for us so we should never, never question them. Why, it would be sacrilegious.
‘The Age’ has variously been renamed ‘The Pravda-by-the-Yarra’ and ‘The Spencer Street Soviet’!
Say no more, except to say that Melbourne is on the Yarra River ….
I got one word for that Aussie rag: Tony Abbott!
See page 15 of this report.. Temp data in Greenland looks rather flat… So how are Glaciers melting 6x faster??
http://bprc.osu.edu/~jbox/pubs/Box_2002_Int_J_Climatol.pdf
I’ve told you before, you should be reading ‘Excel for Dummies’ not climatology papers!
What is the relevance of the photograph at the top of the article to the subject?
I am sick of the misuse of irrelevant images to illustrate “climate change”.
Also, what does the caption: ‘Humanity is warming the planet from 90 per cent to 95 per cent.”
mean?
What they meant was that the “confidence” that it is heating the planet has increased from 90 percent to 95 percent, but even that isn’t true.
hi – if you don’t believe in global warming occuring then get down to the coast and buy some of the properties for sale. Co2 concentration has increased by 33% in 100 years (& by a total 40% over the past 250 years). Co2 reflects sunlight – 33% increase is a significant change, not minor therefore the impact on climate will be just as significant. Stay hiding and keep up the denial and continue to find charts and graphs that make you feel good but the course for global warming has been set and we are marching. You can check out
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2013/08/end-of-malibu-nantucket-erosion
for a bigger picture of rising seas from the perpespective of the wealthy. Go on, wip in and buy them – they are going pretty cheap. After all you don’t believe in global warming..
Wow! That is the stupidest comment of the day.
Oh Steve, you’re such a naysayer! Everyone knows the global warming people are real sciency type of people so maybe he can enlighten us!
Hey, Bern!!! I know you really love science, so could you explain the whole “CO2 reflects sunlight” thingy to us? How does that work?
Pity you are not familar with the science. Try this for a history of the science.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
I find it strange that people will for example, use and trust a mobile phone without hesitation but when the same laws of physics that allow mobile phones to work are applied to the climate suddenly those laws are wrong.
The problem with deniers is that they refuse to look at what is actually happening and instead chase false leads and coloured straws – maybe because they simply don’t want to change their life. But if you think you are on the money then again get down to the sea side and buy up one of those houses going cheap. I won’t be upset if you do get a bargin, as in the vanity fair article there will be plenty on the market to choose from.
Every major city in Australia is on the coast facing 3 major oceans. House prices have increased by over 100% in most cases over the past 10 years. Beachside housing is in highest demand. It is evident that few people believe the crap you believe Bern! Try selling snake oil.
http://apm.com.au/
There appears to be no reference in your link to “CO2 reflecting sunlight”, only to clouds reflecting sunlight and to the replacement of dark forests with sunlight-reflecting crops.
“Co2 reflects sunlight”
If that were true, wouldn’t it reduce the temperature?
I didn’t realise that “Vanity Fair” was a science journal.
You are confusing coastal erosion, which has always happened and will always happen, even if CO2 were to be reduced to some pre-historic level, with sea level rise.
Do you actually believe that this could be prevented by a reduction in CO2 emissions?
Also, the article includes this passage:
“Nantucket, a disappearing spit of land deposited by melting glaciers”
This happened thousands of years ago, at the end of the last ice age.
See under “Geology and geography”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantucket
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet
Did not say vanity fair was a science journal. However, it describes in detail, over time the errosion of beaches in very well know locations. You with your closed eyes fail to see that the errosion described only occcured in the past few decades ( and at an increasing rate ) whereas it was stable for the prior 100 years. Why is this so? Answer: Simply due to higher sea levels.
I do suggest that you take a bit more time in reading the history of global warming – it is not a new concept but a mathametical and chemical calculation of the impact of increasing co2 atmospheric concentration.
Are you going to argue that the people in 1896 (and later) are part of some left wing green group with some dishonest aim or will you recognise them as independent people working with their scientific knowledge for the betterment of society.
Following is a very detailed review of climate change for a specific area – guess what – it describes rising sea levels driving beach erosion as a consequence of increased atmospheric co2 levels.
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/climchangereport.pdf
And are these guys nutters or hard nosed commercial people recognising climate change and making plans to survive, to protect their investments, just like the vanity fair article.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/06/12/new-yorks-bloomberg-proposes-20bn-climate-adaptation-plan/
the only confusion is with deniers refusing to understand the impact of increasing atmospheric Co2
concentrations.
Good luck with your beach front housing.