The climate scamsters are getting increasingly bold with their flagrant lies, claiming that Greenland glaciers are “massively melting down.”
Greenland icemelt study suggests The Day After Tomorrow has some basis in reality.
Greenland is not “melting down.” The surface mass balance increases by at least 200 billion tons every year, and over 400 billion so far this year.
There has been essentially zero melting this year.
Greenland is buried in deep snow.
Temperatures on the ice sheet are -35C
This WWII plane was recently dug out from under 200 feet of accumulated ice.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNEmGaAplgI]
Greenland is absolutely not “melting down.” There are some measurements which have shown a net loss of mass due to glacial outflow exceeding surface mass gain, but that would be a transitory condition which will eventually balance out. Glacial flow is a direct response to the excess snowfall in the interior. If surface mass gain decreased, then glacial flow would necessarily decrease in the future as a response.
Hundreds of billions of tons of snow fall on Greenland every year. That snow all has to return to the sea in rivers of ice called “glaciers.” Climate experts watch the glaciers return to the sea, and declare it a meltdown – because they don’t understand the very basics of science. Where do they expect the 400 billion tons of new snow to go every year?
The state of climate science is farcical. These people don’t have the skills needed to pass a freshman geology class, and then President Obama calls these buffoons “our best scientists.”
It they were our best scientists, we would still be living in caves.
It seems they also don’t understand where the moisture that formed the snow came from in the first place. Perhaps they need a basic lesson on the word “cycle” (within the hydrological context).
A lot of people can’t figure that out when it comes to the drought in Cali, either – and so they clamor for even *more* water to be taken out of the cycle.
or Scenario 2
The glaciers on Greenland quit flowing and calving and the mass build up makes for an isostatic imbalance, Greenland sinks and then we’ll hear “Greenland ice melting has caused massive local sea level ‘rise’… We’re Doomed™ unless we increase taxes.”
I have just realized that the Mississippi River is doing massive untold damage to our climate by dumping all that freshwater from Eastern NA snowfalls into the Gulf… We’re Doomed™ unless we give up more of our freedoms and live like cavemen.
The willful ignorance of these folks is truly amazing. How on Earth can one “study” glaciers yet spout this kind of unscientific crap?
Don’t forget all the eroded rocks/soils getting dumped into the oceans by the rivers.
Before the Rockies were formed the Arbuckle Mountains were in existence. Scientists say they were probably over 20,000 feet tall. The Appalachians also were actually as large or larger than the Rockies. The highest peak of the Appalachians is 6,684 feet, the Rockies, 14,440 feet and the Arbuckle Mountains 1,410 feet.
So think of all that ground up rock that has been dumped into the oceans. No wonder the sea levels are rising! OH MY we are all going to drown!!!!
I have wondered how much sea level is changed by the eroded rock washing in to it. And yet, even with the eroded rock (which SHOULD mean that the basins are getting shallower) we are told that, in fact, the basins are getting DEEPER and that measured sea level must have have an additional adjustment added to it to compensate.
Twisted Progressive logic at work.
Without that natural surface melt one might calculate that the ice cap could only grow to xxxx meters high before it might then become unstable and collapse into the Sea and cause a Tsunami-like rise in its level that would then encircle The Earth.
Don’t forget the amount of new ocean floor created by underwater volcanic activity.
I did the math once on how much sediment transport added to sea level rise. It came out to about 0.2mm/year.
Thank you, Anthony! One more question marked off my list… 🙂
I love pointing out that that plane to those who keep saying Greenland is melting down. It’s fun to watch them struggle for excuses to explain how a plane was stuck under 200 feet of ice which is supposedly melting at an alarming rate. I mean, why do all that work if you could just wait for the ice to melt? 🙂
Isn’t it fun watching them squirm and try to say that Glacier Girl SANK into the already formed ice. (The ice of course can be dated)
An example from WUWT
I go with the engineer. She looks like she is made to float not sink.
http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/0c/4b/0c4bd961-3cf6-450d-91e9-9611d1aa203b/1280px-glacier_girl.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg
Glacier Girl in flight. (William Zuk)
“I go with the engineer. She looks like she is made to float not sink.”
Pop quizz! And that engineer was?
Kelly Johnson. The P38 was one of his first designs. He went on to head up the Lockheed Skunk Works and designed the U2 and later the SR71. What a record…
Best example of glacier “experts'” total buy-in to the panic-mongering money train is in the NPR story below. They visited a glacier on top of a mountain in New Guinea–4 degrees off the equator–steaming jungle territory. The real story is that there’s a GLACIER 4 DEGREES from the EQUATOR. Amazing!
But, no, the panic-mongers have to go with the “it’s disappearing, we’ll all die!” message.
The story is a prototype of the scam influence messaging techniques and the messengers.
The authenticity of the messenger technique: Lonnie is a “leading glacier scientist,” etc, etc.
The number one “scientific” scare message technique: Take a “rate” and extrapolate it into the future. Lonnie witnessed 2 weeks of daily rain, saw the glacier melt 12 inches in those 2 weeks, calculated the rate, and extrapolated that into the future–“The glacier will disappear in 5 years AT THIS RATE!”
Let NPR do the scare-mongering for you:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129652700
“Lonnie Thompson, a professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University, led the team and what he witnessed shocked him: The glacier was literally melting under their feet.
Thompson tells NPR’s Guy Raz he has conducted 57 expeditions around the world, but this trip was unusual. It was the first one where he experienced rain on the glacier every day.
“Rain is probably the most effective way to … cause the ice to melt,” Thompson says. “So this was the first time you could see the surface actually lowering around you.”
While Thompson and his team were there drilling cores, he says, they witnessed the glacier drop 12 inches in just two weeks.
“If that’s representative of the annual ice loss on these glaciers,” he says, “you’re looking at losing over seven meters of ice in a year. Unfortunately, that glacier’s going to disappear in as little as five years if that rate continues.”
Well, Lonnie, it’s been 5 years since your scare-mongering.
FYI, the current weather conditions on Puncak Jaya? Heavy snow forecast for the next 18 days–a total of nearly 5 feet of snow is expected.
http://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Puncak-Jaya/forecasts/4884
Typical scare techniques.
Lonnie Thompson is still at it–traveling the world with his “it’s all melting” hysteria.
NPR still publishes the scare stories.
We cannot let up. The truth will out.
Lonnie is one of the worst types of disinfo agents. He KNOWS the truth and LIES.
Thanks for putting that together. It is an excellent example of how these disinfo agents construct their lies.
Gail,
On Lonnie, you’re absolutely right–he is a craven boot-licking grant-grubbing agent of the government climate-scare operation.
Here’s details of his funding. This list is much more damning than anything the panic-purveyors allege of Willie Soon, or any other Realist:
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/Icecore/vitae/lgt_cv.pdf
Research Grants (72 total)
2014-17 Co-Principal Investigator, Indian Summer Monsoon Variability Reconstructed from
Decadally-Resolved Tibetan Lake Sediments, NSF, EAR-1404819
2014-16 Co-Principal Investigator,
Past climatic and environmenta
l changes at high elevation
in South Tyrol from the Mt. Ortles ice core
s during the last centuries, Bolzano (Italy)
Dept. of Fire and Civil Protection, 142/2014
2012-15 Co-Principal Investigator, Impact of At
mospheric Trace Elements on the Third Pole
Glaciers, NSF, AGS-1149239
2011-12 Co-Principal Investigator,
Climate, ecosystems and human society as recorded in the
first ice core extracted from the Tyrolean Alps, NSF, BCS-1060115
2010-11 Principal Investigator, 1
500 years of summer monsoon vari
ability reconstructed from
high-resolution Tibetan lake
sediments, NSF, EAR-1023547
2009-11 Principal Investigator, Collaborative Re
search: Development of high-resolution
biomass burning records for tropical South
America from Andean ice cores, NSF,
BCS-0921509
2009-10 Principal Investigator,
Chapman Conference on Abrupt
Climate Change: June 15-19,
200: Columbus, Ohio, NSF, OCE-0928601
2008-09 Co-Principal Investigator, Acquisition of
an Inductively Couple-Sector Field Mass
Spectrometer to Extract Atmospheric Trace Element Histories from Ice Cores and
Assess Contemporary Wate
r Quality, NSF, ANT-0820779
2008-11 Co-Principal Investigator,
Climate Water Carbon Core Proj
ect: Low-latitude glacier
retreat, OSU Targeted Investment in Excellence
2008-11 Principal Investigator, P2C2–reconstructi
ng tropical pacific climate variability and
monsoon systems, and abrupt changes from
ice cores on Irian Jaya, Indonesia and
Hualcán, Peru, NSF Div Atmo
spheric Sciences, ATM-0823586
2008-11 Co-Principal Investigator, Collaborative
Research in IPY: Abrupt Environmental
Change in the Larsen Ice Shelf System,
a Multi-Disciplinary Approach – Cryosphere
and Oceans, NSF Polar Programs, ANT-0732655
2006-09 Principal Investigator, In
tegration of paleoclimate reco
rds since the Early Holocene
from a suite of Tibetan Plateau
ice core records, NOAA-CCDD
2005-10 Co-Principal Investigator
, Science and Technology Cent
er: Ice Sheets and Sea Level
Rise, University of Kansas (via NSF), (2200219).
8
L.G.Thompson
Revised: 01/05/2015
2005 Principal Investigator, Kilimanjaro 5 year
Glacier Assessment Project, The Ohio State
University, College of Math & Physical Sciences
2005 The Ohio State University, Byrd Polar
Research Center, Cold Room Renovation
Project. Funded through a Ca
pital Funding Request, State of
Ohio and the Ohio State
University.
2005-08 Principal Investigator, Reconstructi
ng Monsoon and Climate Variability from
Naimona’nyi Ice Cores, Southwes
t Himalayas. NSF-ESH (ATM-0502476).
2005-08 Co-Principal Investigator, Collaborativ
e Research: HSD: The Living Environment
and Human Health Over the Mi
llennia, NSF (SBER), (BCS-0527658).
2004 Principal Investigator, Naimona’nyi
expedition to S.W. Himalayas,
The Ohio State University and Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese
Academy of Sciences.
2003-06 Principal Investigator,
A tropical perspective on 20
th
century climate change from ice
core histories and glacier area and volu
me measurement from the Quelccaya and
Coropuna ice caps in the Southern
Andes of Peru. NSF-ESH (ATM-0318430).
2003-06 Co-Principal Investigator, Glacial Asse
ssment: Past, Present and Future: Acquisition
of essential research inst
rumentation, NSF-OPP (OPP-0321053).
2002-08 Principal Investigator, Comer Climate
Change Fellowship Program, Comer Climate
Change Science and Educa
tion Foundation (20010582 CC4).
2001-05 Principal Investigator; I
ce Core Reconstruction of Nort
h Pacific Climate Variability
and Environmental History from Bona-C
hurchill Ice Field, Alaska, NSF-ARCTIC
(OPP-0099311).
2001-05 Principal Investigator
: Cooperative Ice Core Paleoclimate Study of Monsoon
Variability as Archived in the Puruoga
ngri Ice Cap on the Central Tibetan Plateau,
NSF-ESH-Paleoclimate (ATM-0117113).
2001-02 Climate Change and Environmental Resear
ch Initiative (CCERI). Board of Regents’
Research Challenge Program and Vice Pres
ident for Research
(funded with four
Colleges).
2001-02 Interdisciplinary Research Seminar Pr
ogram: Humans and Climate: A historical
Examination of adaptive responses to Dr
ought and Aridification. Public lecture
seminar organized by Byrd Polar Resear
ch Center, Department of Anthropology,
Department of Geography and Department
of Geological Sciences. OSU Office of
Research funded.
2000-03 Principal Investigator: Role of Envir
onmental Molecular Interfaces on the Chemical
and Biological Reactivit
y of Pollutants-Atmospheric-5. NSF-EMSI.
2000-01 Principal Investigator
– Cooperative Ice Core Paleoclimate Study of Monsoon
Variability as Archived in the Puruoga
ngri Ice Cap on the Central Tibetan Plateau.
NSF-SGER.
1999-02 Co-Principal investigator: Collaborative Re
search: Paleoenvironme
ntal changes in the
Bolivian Altiplano: A high-resolution polle
n record from the Sajama Ice Cap. NSF-
GRSP.
1999-00 Principal Investigator: Ice Core Pale
oclimate Study of East African Monsoon and
ENSO Variability form the Ice Fi
elds of Kilimanjaro. NSF-ESH.
9
L.G.Thompson
Revised: 01/05/2015
1998-02 Spatial and temporal variability of net
annual accumulation and climate in Greenland.
NASA-NAG5-6817. Principal I
nvestigator – Seasonal to
Centennial Climate
Variability Reconstructed from
1997-00 Two High Elevations Subtropi
cal Glaciers in Bolivia – NOAA.
1996-00 Principal Investigator
– A Cooperative Ice Core Pa
leoclimate Study of Monsoon
(Dasuopu Glacier, China) B NSF.
1996-00 Principal Investigator – 1996 NASA Gr
aduate Research Program (Keith A.
Henderson) – NASA.
1996-99 Principal Investigator-Thermodynamics of
Eurasian Arctic ice caps. U.S. Civ. R&D
FDN ISFSU (RG2-144).
1995-99 Principal Investigator – Net Accumula
tion in Western Greenland for the Last 200
Years -NASA.
1995-99 Principal Investigator –
A Cooperative Paleoclimate
Study of Graham Bell Ice Cap,
Franz Josef Land, Russia – NASA.
1994-97 Co-Principal Investigator – Reconstr
ucting Earth’s Volcanic History from High
Resolution Polar Ice Cores. NSF (OPP-9321478).
1994-96 Principal Investigator –
Collaborative Research on Analysis of a High-Resolution
Pollen Record from the Dunde Ice Ca
p of Western China. NSF (SBR-9412262).
1994-95 Principal Investigator – Preliminar
y Assessment of the Paleoclimate Records
Preserved in Ice Cores from Franz Josef La
nd (Russian Arctic) with Emphasis on a
Proxy Record for Regional Sea Ice Extent. NASA (NAGW-3933).
1994-95 Co-Principal Investigator – Holocene/La
te Wisconsinan Dust
History from Taylor
Dome, Antarctica. NSF (OPP-9316282).
1994-95 Principal Investigator –
A Cooperative Paleoclimatic Study of the Northern Martian
Ice Cap: Evaluation of the Potential Qua
lity, Length, and Time Resolution of the
Preserved Environmental Record. Univ.
of Cal – Los Angeles (P.O. 0995 G 4B203).
1993-95 Principal Investigator –
Field Work, saline lakes of th
e Central Andes, NSF (EAR-
9304504).
1992-94 Co-Principal Investigator: Long-Term Tr
end in Net Mass Accumulation at South Pole
(OPP-9117447A01).
1991-95 Co-Principal Investigator: Analysis of
Rapid and Recent Climatic Change (NSF-
ATM-9008407-AO2).
1991-95 Co-Principal Investigator: Analysis
of Rapid and Recent Climatic Change (NSF-
ATM-9008407-AO2).
1991-94 Principal Investigator: A
Cooperative Tropical Paleocli
matic Ice Core Study in the
Cordillera Blanca, Peru and its Relationshi
p to Global Climatic Variability, Phase II
(NOAA Grant NA-16RCO525-02).
1991-94 Principal Investigator: A
Cooperative Tropical Paleocli
matic Ice Core Study in the
Cordillera Blanca, Peru and its Relationshi
p to Global Climatic Variability, Phase II
(NOAA Grant NA-16RCO525-02).
1991-94 Principal Investigator: A
Cooperative Tropical Paleocli
matic Ice Core Study in the
Cordillera Blanca, Peru and its Relationshi
p to Global Climatic Variability, Phase II
(NOAA Grant NA-16RCO525-02).
10
L.G.Thompson
Revised: 01/05/2015
1991-92 Principal Investigator:
A Cooperative Paleoclimatic
Study of the Guliya Ice Cap,
China: Relationship to Global Climatic
Variability, Phase II
(National Geographic
Society Grant No. 4522-91).
1991-92 Co-Principal Investigator: Quel
ccaya Data Volume (NOAA Grant 40RAN5107736).
1990-96 Ice core retrieval, analysis and in
terpretation, Guliya Ice Cap, NSF (ATM-89166350).
1990-94 Principal Investigator:
A Cooperative Climatological
Study of the Guliya Ice Cap,
China: Relationship to Global Clim
ate Variability (NSF ATM RF-724347).
1990-93 Co-Principal Investigator: Climatic Va
riations in the Asian Monsoon Region from
AD 1600: Analysis of High Resolution Paleoclimatic Data (NOAA).
1990-93 Principal Investigator: Snow and Ice Pro
cess Studies Using Satellite Linked Weather
Stations on the High Altitude Tropics
of Peru (NOAA Grant NA90AA-D-AC547).
1990-93 Principal Investigator: A
Cooperative Tropical Paleocli
matic Ice Core Study in the
Cordillera Blanca, Peru, and Its Relationshi
p to Global Climatic Variability, Phase I
(NOAA Grant NA89AA-D-AC197).
1990-92 Principal Investigator: Exploratory Res
earch for U.S.-U.S.S.R. Cooperation in Ice
Core Research in the Tian-Shan and Pamir Ranges (RF-723967).
1990-91 Principal Investigator:
A Cooperative Paleoclimatic
Study of the Guliya Ice Cap,
China: Relationship to Global Climatic
Variability (Nationa
l Geographic Society
Grant No. 4309-90).
1988-93 Principal Investigator:
A Cooperative Climatological-G
laciological Program in the
Antarctic Peninsula (NSF grant OPP-8716384).
1988 Co-Principal Investigator: Pollen Analysis
on Ice Core Samples from the Dunde Ice
Cap, China (OSU Grant).
1986-90 Co-Principal Investigat
or: Holocene Paleoclimatic Reconstruction from Greenland
Ice Cores; plus a supplemental request for
low-level beta counter system (NSF grant
OPP-8520885).
1986-88 Principal Investigator: A
Cooperative Paleoclimatic St
udy of the Dunde Ice Cap and
its Relationship to Global Climatic Variability (funded jointly by NSF grant ATM-
8519794 and The National Geographi
c Society Grant No. 3323-86).
1985 Co-Principal Investigator: Glaciological a
nd climatological anal
ysis of the past 2,000
years from Antarctic ice cores (NSF grant OPP-841-0328A01).
1983 Principal Investigator: Paleoclimatic i
nvestigations on the Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru
(NSF grant ATM-8213601).
1982 Principal Investigator: A cooperative clim
atological-glaciological program in China
(National Academy
of Sciences).
1981 Co-principal investigator: Microparticle an
alysis and glaciologi
cal interpretation of
the 500-m ice core, South Pole, Antarctica (NSF grant OPP8018860).
1981 Principal investigator: Co
mparative Microparticle Anal
ysis of the 385-m J-9 Ice
Core, Ross Ice Shelf (NSF grant OPP8016151).
1979 Principal investigator: Paleoclimatic I
ce Core Records from the Tropical Quelccaya
Ice Cap (NSF grant ATM-7821609).
1978-79 Principal investigator: Mi
croparticle Stratigraphy of
Ice Cores from the Ross Ice
Shelf (NSF grant OPP77-19371A01).
1976-77 Co-principal Investigator: Study of Micropa
rticle Variations in a 101-meter Ice Core
from South Pole, Antarctica (NSF grant OPP76-07745).
11
L.G.Thompson
Revised: 01/05/2015
1974-76 Principal investigator: Further Developm
ent of a Micro-particle Laboratory for the
Study of Ice Cores (NSF grant OPP74-22274).
1974-76 Co-principal Investigator: The Paleoclim
ate of the Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru, and Its
Relationship to Paleoclimate in High Latitudes (NSF grant ATM74-15513A02).
1972-76 Co-principal Investigator: Dust Concentr
ations in Antarctic and Greenland Ice Cores
(NSF grant OPP71-04063-A02).
Lots and Lots of tax dollars.
National Science Foundation, NASA, NOAA National Academy of Sciences, and the leftist rag, The National Geographic Society with a few bucks tossed in by the the STATE Universities.
Clinton signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on 12/06/92 and Al Gore, Hansen and Wirth were trying to con the US Congress into ratifying it so Dr Happer had to go. Dr Happer, who served as the director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, said, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.” In 1993, “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy.”
So for at least the last twenty years, ever since the Progressives conned the US into ratifying the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change the US government has been funding ONLY B. S. Artists like Mann, Hansen Schmidt and Thompson while giving the boot to real scientists like Dr gray and Dr Happer.
The liars at Skepticalscience of course were madly spinning to bury Dr. Happer back in 2011.
Gail,
You do a lot of research, compiling details for your comments here. That information compilation tends to have a brief life-span–it dies when the interest in the Real Science post fades.
When you find yourself putting together information, research, and analysis in a comment, you should copy that comment into your own blog and post it, with a link back to the Real Science comment stream.
Simplesite.com is free and easy.
I also use Weebly.com to create free websites–which include a blog.
If you do that, you’ll have a ready-made, shareable repository of all your work.
Then when you find yourself providing the same information over and over, you can link to a blog post, and/or just copy and paste the details into the new comment.
Just a thought–might make your work more powerful.
Kent,
Thanks
FWIW I do keep copies of some of my work on my computer and I also keep a log of some of my posts here at Steve’s so I can link back to a long comment.
I am computer illiterate so hubby would have to do the care and feeding of a website and he is not interested. (I am still trying to get him to up date the photos on our business website.)
As far as commenting using facts against the emotional twits like Hopeless, I am afraid most of it flies right over their heads. They are too busy having emotional breakdowns because we refuse to agree to jumping off the cliff to pay attention to mere facts. George Count and John Dewey have done their work too well.
And yes I do comment on articles when skeptics are still allowed to comment.
Gail,
Don’t mis-under-estimate your skils.
If you can enter a comment here on WordPress, including inserting links, and copy and pasting quotes, you have more than sufficient computer skills to set up and run your own blog.
Check out http://www.weebly.com
It truly is simple. You can have a blog set up in 5 min–no coding, no computer knowledge needed above and beyond what you do every day.
I just set this up, while typing this comment:
http://heedlesspanic.weebly.com/
It may take a couple minutes of looking at “help” links–but once you figure it out where the buttons are, it’s painless!
Hey kentclizbe! Great comment, good research. I always learn something by hanging out here. Thanks!
Jason,
Happy to help.
For a follow-up learning opportunity, follow the NPR link to the Panicked-Lonnie-in-New-Guinea story.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129652700
Now go down and browse the comments.
You’ll see the third technique of the PC-Progressive panic-mongering operation: Willing Accomplices who carry the water for their Elite Vanguard masters in the comments.
Much like Steve Goddard’s recent foray into the corrosive depths of the comments section of HBO’s VICE propaganda programs–you’ll find the committed sociopaths of cultural destruction peddling their verbal poison. Steve encountered the schizoid insanity of Hope in VICE’s comments.
“Bob the Science Guy” is the leader of the zombie mob on NPR’s comments section.
If we had our act together, we’d counter-act the Bobs and Hopes wherever they congregate in public. Take them on with facts and calm reason. It drives them insane. Viz: Hope’s public nervous breakdown.
Bob Hope was very funny, these Bobs and Hopes are depressing though we can be amused by their brutal way of being jerks.
Jeepers…. I read the article, and the comments are almost like two sets of people speaking different languages. No matter what the sceptics say, the believers do not seem to understand! When the sceptics point out some factual mistake or poor logic from the believers their response is “You are ignoring what I said!” Madness!
“…almost like two sets of people speaking different languages.”
What a great observation.
I think those two sets of people are:
1. Logical, fact-based, reality-based reasoning citizens searching for the truth, and
2. Emotional, easily-manipulated, status-seekers trying to maintain their status as the “cool kids,” regardless of truth, reason, or logic.
The Willing Accomplices dancing to the tune of their Elite Vanguard masters are ready, willing and able to use any form of violence, coercion, intimidation, denigration or other force to impose their will on the realists.
It ain’t pretty. But it’s all out in the open for all to see.
It is a difference of right or left brain dominance.
Left brained dominant thinkers use logic and reason as their guide, while right brain thinkers lead with emotions. We both use both sides, but one side is usually dominant, for some more than others.
I read a story about a woman doctor who was a staunch conservative, and suffered a horrific loss of one half of her brain (no, this is not a joke). She lost the use of her left hemisphere, and was overjoyed at ‘being freed’ from that nasty logic driven side of her brain.
Hey Gator! “She lost the use of her left hemisphere, and was overjoyed at ‘being freed’ from that nasty logic driven side of her brain.”
Ouch! Oh, ye gads!
I am reminded of this favorite clip www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=Oh31I1F2vds of Dr. Edward Teller speaking about John von Neumann. The 30 seconds from 0:50 to 1:20 are the crux of it.
Sounds Like Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde…. Or is that Ms. Hope?
Found her!
“Although many of us may think of ourselves as thinking creatures that feel, biologically we are feeling creatures that think”
? Jill Bolte Taylor, My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist’s Personal Journey
“I believe that the more time we spend choosing to run the deep inner-peace circuitry of our right hemispheres, the more peace we will project into the world, and the more peaceful our planet will be.”
? Jill Bolte Taylor
Another hippy is born.
http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html
The brain is much more complex than that study. Might I suggest reading “How to Create a Mind” by Ray Kurzweil.
Multiple studies have shown a link between artistic thought/talent and the right brain, and multiple studies have shown that artists tend to be more emotive. Nothing is black and white, but listen to Ms Bolte-Taylor and she will also confirm this.
Livescience is not a credible source anyway…
http://www.livescience.com/search.html?cx=partner-pub-1894578950532504%3Aqaei7k190hq&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&sa=&q=global+warming
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-myths/201206/why-the-left-brain-right-brain-myth-will-probably-never-die
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130814190513.htm
“”It’s absolutely true that some brain functions occur in one or the other side of the brain. Language tends to be on the left, attention more on the right. But people don’t tend to have a stronger left- or right-sided brain network. It seems to be determined more connection by connection, ” said Jeff Anderson, M.D., Ph.D., lead author of the study, which is formally titled “An Evaluation of the Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain Hypothesis with Resting State Functional Connectivity Magnetic Resonance Imaging.” It is published in the journal PLOS ONE this month.”
FWIW
I took chemistry in college and also took art courses. It took about an hour to switch from analytical to creative. My art teacher was the one who noticed the difference in my first hour art work compared to the second and third hour.
I can also draw with either hand. Drove my art teachers nuts.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/
http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/deceived-wisdom-extended-sampler
“Conclusion
Another popular myth bites the dust. The notion that people are dominantly left- or right-brained never had a solid foundation in neuroscience, and now the best evidence we have is convincingly negative.
As myths go, this one is fairly benign, but not completely. Any time our understanding of the world is muddied with simplistic and incorrect notions, there is the potential for mischief. In this case, attempting to pigeonhole with a false binary label can be extremely counterproductive in interpersonal relationships and especially psychology.
Such notions also are sometime applied to education with the belief that children have different learning styles that need to be catered to. This also does not appear to be true.”
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/report-human-caused-climate-change-2013-weather-extremes-20140929
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/climate-change-acceptance/
http://www.livescience.com/39998-ipcc-climate-change-report.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141124125444.htm
Need I continue?
Sorry, but Scincedaily also fails the credibility test.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=global+warming
I never said you are either one or the other, in fact I said We both use both sides, but one side is usually dominant, for some more than others.
Brains learn how to think based upon our experiences as well as our genetics. And leftists, who are most definitely more emotive, become right brain dominant through connections made in their brain’s development. We create pathways in our brains through repetition. Emote while trying to reason, and you get one pathway. Repeat this action and you get a superhighway to emoteville, found in the right brain.
Now if you like, I can Google any subject and cut and paste to ‘prove’ my point. I would prefer you make your own observations.
I happen to have an associates degree in music performance, but that was hard for me, as my mind is not that of an artist. For me, science was a much better match, and I graduated with a Remote Sensing degree. Geology/Geography was like breathing, it required little effort. But these two very different degrees allowed me to hang with the hippies and the geeks, and decades of observation along with too many hours of reading lead me to a fairly confident hypothesis. Then I heard first hand from a neuro scientist who lost her right brain, who said it changed her politics and outlook on life.
I have seen enough junk science to last me an eternity, and of course the vast left leaning industry of academia does not want us to know that they are left brain deficient, just as they do not want us to know that nature rules climate.
There is a glacier right on the equator. It occupies the summit of Cayambe, which is a volcano in Ecuador. From what I understand, it’s the only place on Earth where you can walk from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, or vice versa, on snow.
Wow! Isn’t that unbelievable? That is a real “climate story.” A glacier ON THE EQUATOR!
Nature is truly and amazing and wonderful artist.
While she is constantly changing, the beauty and wonder of her gifts have the power to move us to wonder and awe.
Instead of constant panic, we should be constantly grateful and joyful.
Think positive!
If there is a weather station on the glacier, I bet it is one of the stations that has been dropped… 🙂
Just like the stations in the high mountains of Bolivia were dropped and then infilled by stations on the Pacific coast of Peru.
Jason,
Forget about the “scientists” and their imaginary climate monitoring.
There is plenty of real-world weather data available–especially about conditions on mountains.
There are reality-based professionals and hobbyists whose lives depend on accurate forecasts and understanding of weather and climate on mountains–climbers, skiiers, trekkers, and others.
They have set up amazing real-world measurement and forecasting operations–covering the most remote parts of the globe. And all based on reality–not on smearing temperatures from 1000km away across the map.
Here’s what’s happening on Cayambe right now, and for the next couple weeks:
http://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Cayambe/forecasts/5790
“Days 0-3 Cayambe Weather Summary: A heavy fall of snow, heaviest during Wed morning. Temperatures will be below freezing (max 25°F on Tue afternoon, min 21°F on Tue night). Wind will be generally light.”
“Days 3-6 Cayambe Weather Summary: A heavy fall of snow, heaviest during Sun afternoon. Temperatures will be below freezing (max 25°F on Fri morning, min 21°F on Fri night). Wind will be generally light.”
mountain-forecast.com ! Very nice site, I was not aware of that. Thanks!
Reblogged to http://www.hyzercreek.com/hoax.htm and added to “Stupid things global warming alarmists say”
The other big glacier lie is claiming that “When the glacier disappears, the river will run dry. “Of course it will still rain and snow in the watershed and that water will have to go somewhere. But that somehow seems to be overlooked..
Steve, the inconvenient stuff is always overlooked by the alarmist GLO-BULL warming shills.
They dug a U.S. bomber out of the Greenland coastal ice last year. It was 38′ deep; a truly diabolical grant/rent-seeker would say glacier girl was 260′ in the ice when found in 1988 and this plane only 38′ when found in 2013, clearly Greenland is melting at a rate of 8.9′ per year. ?
so, instead perhaps, Glacier Girl was 2hot for the ice 2handle…….
Ooops, just posted this on the last thread.
As the climate scamsters get increasingly bold with their flagrant lies, this house of cards has got to be getting close to collapsing. When it does, it will go down in history as the largest global scam the world has ever known. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
The Dawson clan (Piltdown Man skull fraud), Ponzi and Madoff could have only dreamed of having global – and overwhelming ,massive government monies and a solidarity of media backing them to sponsor their scams.
We can only hope the scam collapses. After the fight over the World Trade Organization gaining control of US farming I am not so sure we will win.
The LIE told by the FDA in 2008 before the Food unSafe Modernization Act turned control over to the WTO.
This tell you the FDA was full of BS
As I said the FDA was full of Bovine Feces!
I have a question….The first graph seems to indicate an increase of 200GT per year. However, there is the statement in the article says “As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.” Are these not contradictory?
Satellites like GRACE measure minute variations in the strength of gravity to try to detect changes in ice mass. Unfortunately, interpreting the detected changes isn’t easy. A reduction in gravity over Greenland could mean that the glacier is shrinking, or that the glacier is growing and heavier rock is being isostastically replaced with lighter ice.
So, your saying that a loss of 200GT/year is either loss of ice, or loss of rock, and there is no way to really tell?
Remember also that 200Gt/year is not much when we are speaking about the largest island in the world. Suppose that the 200Gt/Y loss is correct. A gigaton is about one cubic kilometer of ice. Greenland has almost 3 million km^3. Gee, in only 15,000 years, it will be gone!
Of course that is assuming that the 200 Gt/Y is accurate. But is it? Does anyone know what the error bars are on that estimate? 10Gt/Y? or maybe 10,000Gt/Y? Without being told the possible range of values, a number like 200Gt/Y is essentially meaningless.
I guess I’m confused because Tony says “The surface mass balance increases by at least 200 billion tons every year”, but this article says the exact opposite.
Hey Realist! Ha! Confusion? I experience that many times a day… 🙂
Consider this, however. GRACE and the surface mass balance are essentially two different things. the surface mass balance (the chart that Tony shows) is an estimate based on measuring snowfall, surface melting, sublimation, etc. All those things that are going on, on the surface. The fact that an airplane which was on the surface in WWII ends up 200 feet deep in a few decades is because the surface mass balance is positive. In other words, snow and ice are getting deeper and deeper on the surface and anything on the surface is going to be buried deeper every year. On the other hand GRACE is measuring the gravitation field strength as it travels over Greenland. Let us assume (just for the sake of argument) that the GRACE measurements are absolutely, 100% accurate. (Yeah, I know… not much chance, but let us assume…) OK, GRACE says that the mass of Greenland is dropping by 200Gt/Y. What could cause that? Well, we know that the surface is not melting away. The surface mass balance and the buried airplanes show that. Maybe the dense bedrock of Greenland is warping downward because the ice is getting deeper and deeper and pushing it down. Dense, massive rock is being displaced farther away from the satellite in orbit, which means (since ice is less dense than rock) that the overall gravitational field above Greenland is dropping. That would cause a measured loss of mass when the GRACE satellite flew over. That is certainly a possibility. Here is another possibility. Suppose that we really ARE losing 200Gt/Y of ice, despite the surface additions. Maybe all the melting ice is not surface ice, but is down on the bottom of the ice cap and is being melted by geothermal heat. All that melt water flows under the cap and eventually finds its way to the sea. That is possible too. Or maybe the ice cap is now so massive that the ice is having a spurt of motion toward the coast and the glaciers are (for now) calving off ice faster than the surface mass balance is building it back up. That is possible too. If any of those three possibilities is taking place, you could have GRACE saying that mass is dropping, and the surface mass balance say that the mass is rising.
There is one possibility that we need to rule out, however. If the GRACE measurement is correct but the bedrock is sinking, then the mass loss is NOT from global warming melting the ice. If GRACE is correct and the mass loss is from geothermal melting of the lower ice, then the mass loss is NOT from global warming. And lastly, if GRACE is correct and the mass loss is from excessive glacier calving due to ice build up, then the mass loss is NOT from global warming.
I am starting to see a pattern here… 🙂
This should help: Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf claim the Gulf Stream is slowing due to Greenland ice melt, except reality says otherwise
The problems with GRACE:
GRACE under fire
If you’re going to use the DMI site, you should include this:
Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr..
……
It may not be losing melt directly through melt (especially at this time of year), but is still losing overall mass.
It’s super hard to read graphs. Let’s go shopping!
“Let’s go shopping!”
ONLY if it involves the hardware store or feed store.
It’s really bad when these idiots have to use a science fiction movie to make a point about climate change/global warming/global weirding, etc, etc. You know, I did see a blockbuster movie about a giant monster that came out of the ocean and ate Tokyo. OMG!!!!!! It’s worse than we thought!!! We’re all going to die!!!!
Both Greenland and Antarctrica now have an amazing ability to melt catastrophically at temperatures far below freezing, when they never did before. All due to evil Republicans like Ted Cruz. Gaia hates Ted so much, that she has dropped the freezing point 100 degrees.
Regarding sea level rise….I kinda put all of this into perspective. If Greenland is truly shedding 200Gt/y, or 200 km^3 per year, by comparison the Amazon River does that in one second.
sorry, my math is way off….the amazon river does that in 11.5 days
Yes, 11.5 days at average flow, a week at flood flow — which is a GIGANTIC, ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE amount of water when we puny humans look at it. That sort of underscores how big the world is when we think that the Greenland Ice Cap has 15,000 times that much water tied up. And the Antarctic Ice Cap is overwhelmingly larger than the Greenland Cap. As a general rule, we humans are very poor at having any intuitive grasp of large numbers. They are completely outside our common experience. Which is why millions and millions of people continue to plan their retirement based on buying lottery tickets.
Yesterday’s lie were today’s legislation and tomorrow’s law.
Ok, in the video the never told you WHY it was there. Here is why that aircraft and some others are there.
In 1942 the battle of the Atlantic was blazing away. Admiral Karl Dönitz’s wolf packs of U boats were taking a terrible toll all over the North Atlantic and even right off the east coast of the US and in the Caribbean into the Gulf of Mexico.
The allies were very short on shipping and Bill Kaisers mass production of shipping in US Yards had yet to really get started.
In April 1942 the US started building up what would become several Air Forces in Britain and the N. African/Mediterranean theater. The problem is they didn’t have the shipping they needed to get the aircraft over to Europe. The multiengined transports and bombers could fly over. But fighters were a different matter. At that time the P-38 was the most advanced fighter in the US arsenal. It also had a relatively very long range for a fighter and had two engines. It was the ONLY fighter we had then that could possibly hop over the Atlantic.
So the decision was made to fly as many P-38 F, G, and eventually a few H models as possible. There were two routes. The southern route used the Azores as a stop over. The northern route though was the shortest and most secure for getting aircraft to the British. That route started at Presque Isle, Main with a flight to Goose Bay Labrador. Next came the most dangerous leg from Goose Bay to one of two bases in Greenland located at either Narasarssuak on the southern coast or Sondre Stromfjord on the west coast. From Greenland they would fly to Reykajavik, Iceland and then on to Prestwick, Scotland.
One problem was that the pilots were not trained for such navigation and their aircraft were not equipped with the necessary communications and navigation gear for such a trip. So they used B-17s as “Mother Ships” to do the navigating and long range communications. A normal flight was configured so each Mother ship would guide six P-38s.
The weather in that part of the world is atrocious and particularly foul for the Goose Bay to Greenland leg. Any weather forecast is just a best estimate but in that part of the world with WW II era technology and knowledge the forecasts were more like a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) for the flights. And to make matters worse the Germans knew what the Americans were trying to do and so used false navigation broadcasts to mislead the pilots.
One of the first B-17 only flights lost three out of eighteen bombers to foul weather and false navigation beams. In that case all crews were recovered. And through out the ferry program over the course of the war the rescue efforts and results for downed aircraft crew in Greenland were excellent. Remarkable really in the age before helicopters for that part of the world.
Starting June 23rd, 1942 right into the summer of 1943 P-38s ferried across the northern and southern routes. The USAAF determined that a 10% loss rate would be acceptable. What better indicator could there be of just how desperate the situation was perceived to be?
The gamble paid off. By the end of 1942, 920 aircraft of all types had attempted the flight and only 38 had been lost. Only the crews of 9 aircraft had been lost. 179 P-38s out of 186 that attempted the flight had made it. The route was then shut down for the winter.
The results were so successful that plans were made to ferry 4,000 P-38s in the coming years. But by the summer of 1943 the U-boat scourge had come to an end and Kaiser had produced a miracle in ship production so it was determined that though the bombers and transports would still be ferried over, the fighters would go by ship. One innovation that allowed this was the fitting of racks on the decks of tankers for shipping fighter aircraft.
And so that is why most of those aircraft were/are there in Greenland.