Tango01 | 18 Oct 2016 3:22 p.m. PST |
…previously thought "The same hotspot in Earth's mantle that feeds Iceland's active volcanoes has been playing a trick on the scientists who are trying to measure how much ice is melting on nearby Greenland. According to a new study in the journal Science Advances, the hotspot softened the mantle rock beneath Greenland in a way that ultimately distorted their calculations for ice loss in the Greenland ice sheet. This caused them to underestimate the melting by about 20 gigatons (20 billion metric tons) per year. That means Greenland did not lose about 2,500 gigatons of ice from 2003-2013 as scientists previously thought, but nearly 2,700 gigatons instead -- a 7.6 percent difference, said study co-author Michael Bevis of The Ohio State University…" More here link Amicalement Armand |
Mithmee | 19 Oct 2016 12:24 p.m. PST |
Wanna bet this has happened in the past? When the Vikings landed on it nearly a 1000+ years ago they called it Greenland. Gee, I wonder why? |
GarrisonMiniatures | 19 Oct 2016 3:07 p.m. PST |
Think you miss the point on that one. Doesn't matter that it's happened in the past. What matters is the effect it has now. When the UK was covered in ice during the last Ice Age sea levels were a lot lower. The people of the time lived in places where we catch fish – it's called the North Sea. imagine London in the middle of the North Sea, and the ice melts… That's the point. If sea levels rise, cities finish up under water. If sea levels go down, cities finish up further inland. If the ice melts now, glug glug London – back in the Viking age most of London wasn't there. |
Bowman | 19 Oct 2016 4:04 p.m. PST |
Wanna bet this has happened in the past? I'm sure it did, but not at the accelerated rate we see today. When the Vikings landed on it nearly a 1000+ years ago they called it Greenland.Gee, I wonder why? If you really wanted to know, you'd know that the most plausible reason was that Erik the Red wanted to coerce colonists to come in 985 AD, after he was thrown out of Norway. link link link The current ice sheet that covers over 80% of the land in Greenland hasn't changed much in 110,000 years and averages 2-3 km in depth. It is millions of years old and dates from the Pliocene. Meese, DA, AJ Gow, RB Alley, GA Zielinski, PM Grootes, M Ram, KC Taylor, PA Mayewski, JF Bolzan (1997) The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 depth-age scale: Methods and results. Journal of Geophysical Research. C. Oceans. 102(C12):26,411-26,423. There is much research available that shows that the ice sheet is now melting. Check it out. |
goragrad | 19 Oct 2016 10:16 p.m. PST |
Of course the point being ignored is that the ice is melting from the bottom due to heat rising from the mantle. Apparently someone needs to find a way to refrigerate the crust so that the melting will stop… |
Bowman | 20 Oct 2016 7:00 a.m. PST |
The surface melting has also been studied. The fact that deep melting from the active mantle beneath Greenland and Iceland occurs is what caused them to underestimate the total melting from the ice fields. It's certainly not an indictment against AGW. nsidc.org/greenland-today link link PDF link |
Terrement | 20 Oct 2016 1:56 p.m. PST |
I guess we're doomed, then |
Who asked this joker | 21 Oct 2016 5:34 a.m. PST |
When the Vikings landed on it nearly a 1000+ years ago they called it Greenland. They called it Greenland because after some considerable searching of the island, they found an area that had fertile soil. Kinda like today. Except now the ice is melting much, much faster. I guess we're doomed, then Naw. It just means that the island will present us with wide swaths of uninhabitable, barren land, much like it is today except warmer. |
goragrad | 22 Oct 2016 2:25 a.m. PST |
Considering that they were seeing a significant increase in growing seasons and the ability to grow crops that hadn't been able to be grown since the advent of the Little Ice Age (as well as seeing previous covered archeological sites exposed as the ice melts), don't see that it will be barren and uninhabitable. Rather like the retreat of Canadian glaciers that exposed 400 year old moss that regrew. Had them curious so scientist took some of the freshly exposed moss to the lab where it regrew. link Fancy that… |
Who asked this joker | 22 Oct 2016 5:34 a.m. PST |
When the Vikings landed on it nearly a 1000+ years ago they called it Greenland.Gee, I wonder why? Because people would not have followed Erick the Red to the new land if he said it was bitter cold with little arable land. An early example of false advertising. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 22 Oct 2016 7:37 a.m. PST |
Probably the same with Vinland. |
Bowman | 22 Oct 2016 6:15 p.m. PST |
Well if you want to conflate the Medieval Climatic Anomaly with the warming found today, knock yourself out. The warming found in the North Atlantic during 950-1250 was not global. In fact the global temperature was cooler than today. |
Bowman | 22 Oct 2016 6:27 p.m. PST |
Probably the same with Vinland. Vin means "meadow" or "pasture" in old Norse. It was assumed to become "Wine-land" due to a mistranslation into Latin. Therefore it is "land of meadows" and hence the modern name of the Viking settlement of L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland. However, still could be good propaganda. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 22 Oct 2016 10:51 p.m. PST |
|
GarrisonMiniatures | 23 Oct 2016 1:51 a.m. PST |
Something I've also learned, thanks. |
Gunfreak | 23 Oct 2016 2:41 a.m. PST |
You can see it in some place names in Norway. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinje But nothing like modern norwegian for meadow with is eng. My wife's name last name is Engebakken. From an old farm (many norwegian last names are from farms) It literally means meadowhill (sounds like a hobbit name) my name mountain. And so now our name is Meadowhill-Mountain |
Martin From Canada | 23 Oct 2016 3:23 p.m. PST |
Vin means "meadow" or "pasture" in old Norse. It was assumed to become "Wine-land" due to a mistranslation into Latin. Therefore it is "land of meadows" and hence the modern name of the Viking settlement of L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland.However, still could be good propaganda. Actually, the French maps from the 1500s and 1600s have it as l'Anse au Meduse which traslates as Jellyfish Cove… (l'Ance = Cove, Meduse = Medusa or Jellyfish) |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 23 Oct 2016 5:17 p.m. PST |
Or of the real Medusa? Scary thought. Or maybe interesting game scenario. |
Bowman | 24 Oct 2016 3:59 p.m. PST |
Actually, the French maps from the 1500s and 1600s have it as l'Anse au Meduse which traslates as Jellyfish Cove… (l'Ance = Cove, Meduse = Medusa or Jellyfish) Lol! Thanks Martin. That makes a lot more sense. I wondered why it was the "Cove of Meadows". So "meadow" comes from "Medusa", the same way the tennis term "love" (for a score of zero) comes from the French "l'oeuf". Or of the real Medusa? Scary thought. Or maybe interesting game scenario. Imagine the skraelings worshiping a Gorgon living in a sacred cove, when the Vikings come blundering in. Not only do the natives become belligerent towards the interlopers, but now we really know why the Vikings left. To wargame it you may need a combination of Call of Cthulhu and Saga! Just could work. |
Martin From Canada | 25 Oct 2016 9:15 p.m. PST |
Or SAGA Revenants |
Mithmee | 26 Oct 2016 12:30 p.m. PST |
but not at the accelerated rate we see today So do you have information on that? and not some made up assumpations… Actual information as in actual measurements taken back in the 800's to 900's. |
Bowman | 27 Oct 2016 4:58 a.m. PST |
So do you have information on that? and not some made up assumpations…Actual information as in actual measurements taken back in the 800's to 900's. I don't. But the guys who analyze atmospheric gas bubbles in ice cores do. And way farther back than 800 AD too. BTW, where do you get 800 from? The Norse arrived in 986. |
Mithmee | 28 Oct 2016 1:19 p.m. PST |
No analyzed numbers either actual real data. As for the 800's to 900's that mean data for every single day of the year back then. So 200 years of daily temperature data. Now if you want to add in the years from 1000-1100 I am okay with that since more data give you better results. So that would be 300 years of data. |
Charlie 12 | 30 Oct 2016 6:50 p.m. PST |
No analyzed numbers either actual real data. Uh, that's what the ice cores are, REAL DATA. |
Martin From Canada | 31 Oct 2016 8:39 a.m. PST |
Charlie, he's still in 2005… link |
Mithmee | 31 Oct 2016 5:57 p.m. PST |
Uh, that's what the ice cores are, REAL DATA So those ice cores say it was 45 degrees at 1:30 PM on March 892. I think not. So that is not real data. I want actual Temperatures and ice cores do not have that data. Oh unless you build a time machine either will anyone else. |
Martin From Canada | 31 Oct 2016 7:01 p.m. PST |
Like I was implying, Mithmee is taking his cues from Dr. MacKintrick (or whatever news source that is doing control-c/control-v scholarship that Mithmee took it from), but is misplaying his hand. Also, Ross' "argument" was bunk in 2005, and is still excrement of Bos Tauros today. While not a trained or licensed psychologist (my only psychology credit was a second-year Stats course (due to the Geography stats course being canceled due to lack of students), I can't help but find the Alice in Wonderland paper by Lewandowsky, Cook and Lloyd to be illuminating. link |
Bowman | 01 Nov 2016 7:27 a.m. PST |
So those ice cores say it was 45 degrees at 1:30 PM on March 892.I think not. So that is not real data. Yes it is. In fact, it is extremely useful data. There is a direct correlation between CO2 and methane content and temperature. Also the isotopic ratios of the CO2 and methane indicate if the Carbon was from an organic source. Here is a useful overview, in case you are interested: link You honestly think not knowing the specific temperature somewhere at "1:30 PM on March 892" is an indictment against Climate Science? Isn't that akin to claiming that if we don't have all the fossils for every long dead creature then evolution is not based on "real data" either? |
Mithmee | 04 Nov 2016 12:29 p.m. PST |
Well if you believe in Global Warming/Climate Change no one is going to change your mind about it even though that it has been proven that the earth is not any warmer than 20 years ago. I do not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change since when you have the Global Warmers/Climate Changers using made up numbers or using formulas designed to prove their point. They are more interested in controlling everyone and will stop at nothing to get their way. |
Martin From Canada | 04 Nov 2016 6:07 p.m. PST |
From: link
OR if you want it from a Non-US based agency, we have HadCRUT4, here ( link ), where they provide information on their funding sources, data for you to download and examine, as well as answers to frequently asked questions.
Maybe you want data from outside of the Anglosphere? The Japanese Met Agency do some really top notch work:
link Otherwise, I think that the answer is found in the Alice in Wonderland paper by Lewandowsky, Cook and Lloyd. |
Charlie 12 | 04 Nov 2016 7:58 p.m. PST |
Well if you believe in Global Warming/Climate Change no one is going to change your mind about it even though that it has been proven that the earth is not any warmer than 20 years ago. Even though the data, from multiple sources and developed using multiple methodologies shows differently… But what do I (or they) know…. I do not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change since when you have the Global Warmers/Climate Changers using made up numbers or using formulas designed to prove their point. Oh yes, its a VAST conspiracy. Never mind getting a group of researchers to agree on where to go for lunch is nearly impossible. As for the "made up numbers"; they've been checked, rechecked and checked again. And derived by multiple and different methodologies. Sorry, they still come up the same. And, finally, science doesn't really need your approval to be true; Ma Nature doesn't really give a hoot about yours (or mine) opinions. They are more interested in controlling everyone and will stop at nothing to get their way. |
Mithmee | 07 Nov 2016 1:28 p.m. PST |
Yup, Martin with his misleading charts. Where he tries and show that a very small change is actually a really big change. Put that onto a scale of 15 degrees or even 5 degrees and you would end up with a nearly flat line. But that does not sell their need for control of others. |
Martin From Canada | 07 Nov 2016 4:39 p.m. PST |
You are aware that 5 degrees in average global temperature is a BIG change.
xkcd.com/1379 |
Mithmee | 07 Nov 2016 6:12 p.m. PST |
First off you need to have a 5 degree change and we don't. Plus it was a lot colder than 5 degrees during the last ice age but that was due to the earth getting hit by a large piece of rock. |
Martin From Canada | 07 Nov 2016 8:32 p.m. PST |
You appear to have no grasp of the magnitude we're talking about when talking about the energy needed to raise the average global temperature by 1 degree. The Wisconsinan glaciation was almost certainly caused by orbital procession, and was a continuation of the pattern exhibited during the Quaternary glaciation system that extends from c2.8mya to present day. |
Charlie 12 | 07 Nov 2016 9:05 p.m. PST |
First off, the small increase so far has resulted in some rather heavy changes in the growing seasons of some staple crops. And put them under considerable stress. Add your 5 degrees and those crops flat disappear. But that does not sell their need for control of others. That tinfoil hat of yours must be getting awfully tight… |
Mithmee | 08 Nov 2016 12:53 p.m. PST |
You appear to have no grasp of the magnitude we're talking about when talking about the energy needed to raise the average global temperature by 1 degree. No it is you who is not seeing that this has happened before and will more than likely happen again and again. The thing is it will not be due to what humans are doing. There was a time when the Thames river froze over every year. Oh and that was after that warming period of the Middle Ages. You and your other Global Warmers/Climate Changers want to put this all on the heads of mankind when you really do not have a clue about what has happen before we had SUV's. |
Charlie 12 | 09 Nov 2016 8:14 p.m. PST |
Just because you refuse to accept the rather large volume of hard science about AGW doesn't make it false. Like I said before, Ma Nature doesn't really give a hoot about your opinion. Oh, BTW, have you ever thought about bringing some hard FACTS to back your opinions? That would be refreshing…. |