NASA appears to have pulled all the stops on their climate fraud. Today’s effort is a real gem.
A new NASA study published in the journal Science discusses how researchers discovered that the Zachariae Isstrom glacier had become unstable and broken off in 2012. The Zachariae Isstrom glacier is now melting at a rate of five billion tons every year, which can be quite devastating since the glacier holds about five percent of the Greenland ice sheet, or about 35,440 square miles.
Devastating? Utter garbage. Five billions tons of ice will raise sea level by just over 0.1 mm. It will require 10,000 years to raise sea level one meter at that rate.
Greenland has gained 200 billion tons of new snow since September 1, and has had a half dozen days in the last two months where more than five billion tons of snow accumulated on Greenland in a single day.
“North Greenland glaciers are changing rapidly,” said Jeremie Mouginot, an assistant researcher in the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California, Irvine. “The shape and dynamics of Zachariae Isstrom have changed dramatically over the last few years. The glacier is now breaking up and calving high volumes of icebergs into the ocean, which will result in rising sea levels for decades to come.”
Sea level has been rising for the past 20,000 years. It is quite certain that it will continue to rise for the next few decades.There were high volumes of icebergs in 1912 which sank the Titanic during NASA’s coldest year ever.
The warming of the oceans is believed to be a major factor in why the Zachariae Isstrom glacier is melting. The bottom of the giant glacier is being rapidly eroded by a mixture of melt water from Greenland’s ice sheet and the warmer ocean water.
At the same time, Eric Rignot, Chancellor’s Professor of Earth system science at UCI, and Joint Faculty Appointee at JPL, says the Zachariae Isstrom glacier’s ice on top is also melting. While the underside is being eroded by the ocean, the topside is melting away due to increasing air temperatures in this region of Earth.
Greenland goes through warming and cooling cycles. Eastern Greenland was just as warm in the 1930’s through the 1950’s – when CO2 was much lower.
In 1939, scientists were making exactly the same claims, but after 1950 temperatures there plummeted.
It has nothing to do with global warming. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation controls Greenland temperatures. NASA knows this perfectly well and is simply committing fraud.
NASA sure loves big numbers…oh…my…god…5 billion tons…we’re all going to die!!!
Steven, none of that is evidence of fraud. None of it is evidence that any NASA claims about Greenland are even incorrect.
I agree somewhat – Fraud is a bit strong, but taking a “snapshot” of a particular moment in time, and pretending that you can extrapolate trend from that shot in the absence of other correlating factors (snow accretion, flow rates, etc. is at best, poor science. I don’t think it is “designed to mislead;” rather “designed to obtain follow-on grants” is possibly closer to the truth.
It’s hard to prove fraud, but the deception and lies are obvious.
Fraud is indeed hard to prove, but consider this. These scientists claim to be experts on the suject and are being paid to exercise their best professional talents. If a world renowned heart transplant surgeon removed a lung and replaced it with a heart, would that be a simple and understandable error? If he did that multiple times over a period of decades, would it still be an accident?
If it’s not intended to gain real and accurate information in order to add to the body of knowledge of how our universe works then it isn’t SCIENCE. It’s something else. Thus they are frauds if their goal or intent is anything else.
Would you like to settle for criminally incompetent?
Criminally INTENTIONALLY incompetent. !
They must know the reality, yet choose another story..
DELIBERATELY LYING.
Like Marty, they are either stupid or dishonest.
Except that Martin is both.
Deliberately slanting their interpretation of events may not meet the Bernie Madoff standard of fraud, but it is an abomination to the practice of science. “Climate scientists” blatantly slant the news to keep alarminism and mindless hysteria going at full tilt. With the obvious purpose of filching the treasury to support themselves and a largely political agenda.
Marty, it is a combination of inherent, constructive and extrinsic fraud and by showing a breach of legal duty, direct proof is not required.
fraud
n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud. Quite often there are several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all may be liable for the total damages.
Inherent in fraud is an unjust advantage over another which injures that person or entity. It includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other writing (such as a deed), or not revealing a fact which he/she has a duty to communicate, such as a survey which shows there are only 10 acres of land being purchased and not 20 as originally understood.
Constructive fraud can be proved by a showing of breach of legal duty (like using the trust funds held for another in an investment in one’s own business) without direct proof of fraud or fraudulent intent.
Extrinsic fraud occurs when deceit is employed to keep someone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial, by hiding evidence or misleading the opposing party in a lawsuit. Since fraud is intended to employ dishonesty to deprive another of money, property or a right, it can also be a crime for which the fraudulent person(s) can be charged, tried and convicted.
Borderline overreaching or taking advantage of another’s naiveté involving smaller amounts is often overlooked by law enforcement, which suggests the victim seek a “civil remedy” (i.e., sue). However, increasingly fraud, which has victimized a large segment of the public (even in individually small amounts), has become the target of consumer fraud divisions in the offices of district attorneys and attorneys general.
Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=785#ixzz3rJUZGhqZ
Most here think your case would be for naught, due to “taking advantage of another’s naiveté”.
I think you need to boot MS
Please don’t. I always get a good laugh at his wacky comments
I’ve come to the conclusion that the emphasis on NE Greenland has come about for two reasons:
1. Zachariaes Brae and Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden are little known and therefore pretty much anything can be said about them.
2. The Petermann Glacier is not likely to spawn any massive icebergs for the foreseeable future and therefore is of no further use for alarmism.
Here’s an interesting way to look at the discharge of ice from Zachariaes Brae.
Since Greenland doesn’t have any rivers, these glaciers are the main drainage for the island. If there was no drainage Greenland would reach up into the stratosphere already.
So, Zachariaes Brae discharges 50Gt/year, the River Rhine discharges 63Gt/year and the River Rhône, 54Gt/year. Wait for it … the Mississippi discharges 530Gt/year and the Columbia River, 237Gt/year.
The Mississippi raises sea level 1.06mm/year! If it was in Greenland we would never hear the end of it.
Of course, the deception from the warmists is that they never separate the return of precipitated water to the sea from the excess due to melting. Since, according to DMI:
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
the mean mass balance for Greenland is positive, it doesn’t matter how much any of these ice rivers around the periphery of Greenland discharge, they are returning less to the sea than fell in precipitation on Greenland.
Far from causing sea level rise, Greenland contributes about -0.56mm/year to sea level rise.
Rignot et al should get back to us when they’ve worked out the difference between the annual accumulation on Greenland and the annual discharge via each glacier.
And in fact the increased accumulation of snow and thus eventually ice should naturally result in heavier mass pushing the ice down hill and resulting in more calving in those which flow to the sea. That is what glaciers do isn’t it?
Yep!
But to hear these people one would think that calving is not a natural thing.
Thing is, rah, that these guys DO KNOW that calving is a natural thing.
They are DELIBERATELY leaving out that information, just like they are DELIBERATELY leaving out any reference to the link to the AMO cycle.
That’s what makes their papers and press releases tantamount to FRAUD.
Billy; brilliant
Sorry, Titanic didn’t sink after hitting an ice-berg in April 1912, as we have come to know during the years of man made global warming, icebergs only started to appear after we produced the first SUV. Or, Titanic didn’t sink until after 1998 .. See, you can’t have it both ways!