|
On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote:
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along.
Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Global warming from an anthropological cause can be attributed to humans starting to plow lands for crops (long ass time ago). One out come of plowing land is that it inhibits bacteria, mathanotrophs, from taking methane out from the air, which is one of the proven gases to create a greenhouse effect in atmosphere.
secondly plowing lands kills the local dense vegetation, which essentially effects both evapotranspiration and CO2 levels.
If you don't think life can affect atmospheric levels all you need to do is understand that before photosynthesis there was not anywhere near the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere as there are today.
|
I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying.
|
On July 25 2012 09:56 kdgns wrote:
I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying.
The good thing about the 'wait and see approach' is that if you're wrong, by the time you know it, it'll be too late to stop it.
|
On July 25 2012 09:55 Wampaibist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote:
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along. Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start?
Things happen because of random variance. Krakatoa fucking exploded, but it wasn't itself evidence that the entire Earth was becoming Mordor. The Tunguska event was a big meteor explosion, but by itself it's not explained by "oh the Earth was just drifting through an asteroid field that year." It's possible that these two things are both true: humans have an effect on their environment AND random shit happens anyways.
|
Article says it's SURFACE melt, it's not like a giant iceberg disappeared in 4 days. That's some choice word selection in the title and OP.
|
I see stuff like this...and then remember things like finding giant shark fossils in the Sahara...and remember that the Vikings called Greenland....Greenland for a reason.
Is this particular event man caused? I have no idea, i would think not, something this drastic seems to be far more powerful than the temperature rising 0.4 degrees. Will epic, world changing crap happen regardless of what we can do? Yes. Should we all panic and blame governments everywhere for ice melting? I don't think so.
|
On July 25 2012 09:59 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:56 kdgns wrote:
I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying. The good thing about the 'wait and see approach' is that if you're wrong, by the time you know it, it'll be too late to stop it.
The thing about trying to fix something you barely understand, like climate, is that you will be much more likely to screw everything up than fix it.
|
On July 25 2012 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote:
Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder. Badly worded. But probably an element of truth to this. I'm certain mass consumption of fossil fuels contributes something to the overall heating of the planet, but I reeeeaaally doubt it's enough to cause a measurable change. But, what the fuck do I know? I'm just some jackass on the internet that has done like no research. Just a gut feeling. Heh.
While the Sunspot cycle causes a cyclic climate variance on Earth, said cycle's extremes have been steadily increasing. Basically, if you want to argue that global warming is part of this naturally occurring cycle, then you must conclude that we are within a thousand years (probably less) of the worst ice age in measurable history.
Basically - common scientific theory is that we are artificially perpetuating growth in temperature with carbon emissions - but as the old (and yet incredibly applicable to modern environmental science) saying goes "What goes up..."
|
On July 25 2012 09:56 kdgns wrote:
I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying.
by looking at ice cores, sediment, fossils, and sea floor deposition of calcium carbonates we can get the ratio of elements in our atmosphere from many periods of the earth. During the segments into the past that we can see most time periods experienced change quite like we are experiencing today. So in essence we do have averages of long periods of time, and also in many different eons, epochs, chrons; you name the division of time!
If you look back during the middle carboniferous, they too experienced climate change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous_Rainforest_
It is not that climate change is something inexperienced to the earth, it is however something that can have very bad results.
|
On July 25 2012 09:54 Candadar wrote:
You guys have it all wrong.
It's just a natural event. I mean it's still snowing in some parts of the world! Global Warming can't explain that!
I mean, come on. What if we make the world a cleaner and more sustainable place to live in for no reason?!
You almost had me.
|
On July 25 2012 10:04 YODA_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:59 Derez wrote:On July 25 2012 09:56 kdgns wrote:
I would have to go with the "wait and see" approach, the danger is not in the fact that this occurred, but rather depends on the frequency of this occurring, remember climate by definition depends on averages over long periods of times. Of course, given the past events, this new one is worrying. The good thing about the 'wait and see approach' is that if you're wrong, by the time you know it, it'll be too late to stop it. The thing about trying to fix something you barely understand, like climate, is that you will be much more likely to screw everything up than fix it.
Yet if you ask the people that actually know what they're talking about, the scientific community, 95% of experts will tell you that lower carbon dioxide emissions will lead to lower overall temperatures.
The only people that dispute global warming are the people cherrypicking crooked scientists out of the small minority of scientists that are willing to sell out in order to provide political cover.
|
From NASA ice scientist Tom Wagner Wagner said researchers don't know how much of Greenland's ice melted, but it seems to be freezing again.
So at least its freezing, but definitely a reminder that in general as more ice melts the more heat the Earth will be unable to reflect back into space, which will make the problem progressively worse. At least the future will be interesting
|
Why worry about global warming, when the zombie apocalyspe will make us extinct before then 
|
On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote:
Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not.
Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
|
On July 25 2012 10:09 radscorpion9 wrote:From NASA ice scientist Tom Wagner Show nested quote +Wagner said researchers don't know how much of Greenland's ice melted, but it seems to be freezing again. So at least its freezing, but definitely a reminder that in general as more ice melts the more heat the Earth will be unable to reflect back into space, which will make the problem progressively worse. At least the future will be interesting
Haha - interesting to say the least. Day After Tomorrow anyone?
|
On July 25 2012 09:59 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:55 Wampaibist wrote:On July 25 2012 09:44 DJFaqU wrote:
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise."
tl;dr: nothing to see here, move along. Doesn't make sense to me why would this type of melt occur once every 150 years? And when did the 150 year cycle start? Things happen because of random variance. Krakatoa fucking exploded, but it wasn't itself evidence that the entire Earth was becoming Mordor. The Tunguska event was a big meteor explosion, but by itself it's not explained by "oh the Earth was just drifting through an asteroid field that year." It's possible that these two things are both true: humans have an effect on their environment AND random shit happens anyways.
Random shit is very bad for making predictions in science. Science is the art of making a correct prediction using some model you have made. Different models can come up with the same outcome, but as long as it accurately predicts then it is a good model.
I assure you the glacialogist didn't believe in random variance and her life work is dedicated in trying to figure out why the 150 year cycle is happening.
As to your example of krakatoa exploding has nothing to do with random variance as well. Krakatoa is located above a hotspot, where temperature gradients in the earth mantel causes the rise of hot viscous solids and liquids.
|
On July 25 2012 10:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote:
Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not. Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect.
You may not be able to tell exactly which bugs came in - but you can measure how many more come in when you leave the light on and window open.
|
On July 25 2012 10:13 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:11 sunprince wrote:On July 25 2012 09:42 caradoc wrote:
Of course it was accelerated and precipitated by climate change. But it's like attributing hurricanes to climate change, statistically there will be many many more giant hurricanes, but you can't attribute a specific event to it because the occur at different scales of causality.
It's like if you have a window open at night, and you turn on a light-- many more bugs will be in the house than if the light was off, but you can't tell if any given bug came in because the light was on or not. Whether you can tell why any given bug came in is irrelevant. All you need to know is that there's a causative effect from turning the light on, and that you can measure the extent of that effect. You may not be able to tell exactly which bugs came in - but you can measure how many more come in when you leave the light on and window open.
Exactly, thanks for phrasing it better than I did.
|
Obviously a spaceship did land there ..thats why all the ice is gone
silly people :O
|
On July 25 2012 09:54 Candadar wrote:
You guys have it all wrong.
It's just a natural event. I mean it's still snowing in some parts of the world! Global Warming can't explain that!
I mean, come on. What if we make the world a cleaner and more sustainable place to live in for no reason?!
Haha - moment I moved Fox News from "Imbecilic" to "Shit Heap."
+ Show Spoiler +
Edit: Careful - I tink if you wach video makes yu dumberererrr.rr.rr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
