http://www.nationalgeographic.com/
National Geographic thinks there is normally sea ice along the southwest coast of Greenland. They probably should have checked that out before writing an article about it.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Feb/N_198102_extn.png
“Where warming temperatures have reduced permanent sea ice”
That is an oxymoron…..obviously written by a moron.
They probably meant warm waters.
Ice has always melted at the glacial terminus. This is not a sign of global warming. This occurred during every ice age where glaciers terminate into water. The water is above freezing, that is why it is water and not ice.
There is no such thing as permanent sea ice. That is the oxymoron.
Anyone else notice that when they allow comments, they get trashed…
..and more and more they are not allowing comments
They used to get away with it, but people have decided to educate themselves and not take what they say for granted. I am convinced that the uneducated/uninformed believe that the ice at the North Pole is what is remaining from the last ice age, and when it melts, it will never come back. They have no idea what sea ice is.
Yes I do! I know that simple facts are deleted from their sites. it’s called being in a “comfortable state of alarm” you have no right to express your opinion on topics that disagree with the “publisher”! the “publisher” has the right to tell you lies! sinisterly or not.
Tomorrow is the end of the world. You have clean underwear on?
End of the world preacher’s ministry worth $72 million.
…..Camping first inaccurately predicted the world would end in 1994. Even so, he has gathered even more followers — some who have given up their homes, entire life savings and their jobs because they believe the world is ending…..
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/19/news/economy/may-21-end-of-the-world-finances-harold-camping/index.htm
I wonder what year these intrepid naturist adventures actually took place in? Not in 2011 – that’s for sure!
2007
During the Viking habitation and earlier European journeys they mapped the coast of Greenland showing islands that are under year round ice to this day. Never before in the last 40 years has there been as little ice around Greenland! Except when there was more! 8)
The last line should have been: Except when there was LESS!
I understood you More or Less!
“Sure, I don’t doubt that the average temperature on the ice cap rose four degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius)”
Must be the new math…. lets see…. how does that work again?
4F * 9 / 5 = 7.2C no that’s not it…. or is it 4F * 5 / 9 = 2.2C no…. Arg… I just can’t get to 16C.
4 degrees Fahrenheit is -16 Celsius! 8)
That means the temperature of Greenland has gone up minus 16 degrees Celsius!
It is warming so fast it is getting colder!
You’re making my head hurt again…
If the artical said the temperature rose TO 4F I might understand the omission of the minus sign infront of the 16.
But to omit both the TO and the MINUS isn’t that…. Oh… I get it a double omission is like two negatives making a positive only in reverse… So if we reverse it then a +16F is really -16F. I’m catching on.
So again… how does a temperature RISE in a negative direction? Is that part of that hot/cold wet/dry thing I’m still trying to wrap my head bandages around? Perhaps some duct tape would help.
Anything is possible in Climatology! 8)
Where is the sealevel rise that should occur with all this “it’s melting faster than we thought” business? even Hansen is accepting that rise has dropped from 3.2mm to 2.5 mm/year since 2005. Are they making that much bottled water from glacial melt that it isn’t going into oceans but to grocery stores?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned Nixon in 1969 that a 25% increase in CO2 concentrations by 2000 will raise global temperatures by 7 F, or 3.9 C.
“This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
This sure resonates with modern climate anthropocalypticism.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-02/news/27068918_1_nixon-presidential-library-global-warming-carbon-dioxide
Venice, Italy?? just saying!
There’s a difference between the open seas and the sheltered bays and inlets. The latter are far too small scale to show up on the NSIDC map.
Specifically, the article is talking about Disko Bay. There, the sea ice melts out by early/mid May in a mild winter, late May in a normal winter, and mid June in a hard winter. In the 50’s it would stay frozen until July. Back in the Little Ice Age it stayed frozen year-round, which is one reason for the demise of the Norse colonies there.
I think someone who’s been running a research station on-site for the last 16 years may be a tad more qualifed than you to talk about the changes they’re observing.
Those sheltered Bays are completely melted out! http://www.andreassen.gl/andreassen/webcam.htm
That’s Tasiilaq, in south-*eastern* Greenland. The one you’re looking for is here:
http://www.hotelarctic.com/om_hotel_arctic/webcam/
Looks about half melted out in mid May – pretty sure most of the bigger lumps you see in the background are not sea ice, they’re icebergs calved from the glacier.
I know, all the ice is melted and Manhattan is underwater.
Peter:
Greenland and the Arctic do not matter because that is only evidence of Regional changes and a repeat of historic changes in that region. You are just discussing long term regional weather patterns. The research station being there has had a dramatic effect on regional conditions due to waste heat and adding to the population so we are also seeing the Human Factor which makes the observations questionable! The human effect is logarithmic and each doubling of population has a reduced effect but advances in technology also have a direct effect on the surrounding environment, some positive and some negative.