Current melting of Greenland's ice mimicks 1920s-1940s event

PhyOrg.com ^ | 2007-12-10 | Earle Holland

[Darksheare]

LOL

It happened before without ill effect and without catastrophic events, yet it bolsters the theory?

[sourcery]

The work, reported at this week's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco , may help to discount critics' notion that the melting of Greenland 's glaciers is merely an isolated, regional event.

Are they really that stupid? The findings of this study absolutely DO NOT help the "antrhopogenic global warming" case AT ALL. Instead, it adds yet more evidence that the recent warming is neither unusual nor unprecedented. It's happened before, to the same extent, and at the same rate. In fact, it's been worse!

[Panzerlied]

So, if greenhouse gases are responsible, why didn’t it continue?

[Always Right]

It happened before without ill effect and without catastrophic events, yet it bolsters the theory?

So it cooled from 1940's to the 1980's despite the massive build up of man made CO2?

[LasVegasMac]

...it adds yet more evidence that the recent warming is neither unusual nor unprecedented.

I don't know about you but I never let facts get in the way...never...ever.

[freekitty]

It just shows you the that we have some big scammers today making a lot of money off their scams.

[Steve_Seattle]

" . . . the massive ice sheet might pass its “threshold of viability” – a tipping point where the loss of ice couldn't be stopped. Once you pass that threshold,” Box said, “the current science suggests that it would become an irreversible process."

To me, their research suggests the very opposite - that the melting process comes and goes, and is mostly unrelated to human factors. And how they can claim the melting process at some point would become "irreversible" is beyond me.

[MediaMole]

...and if they are so sensitive to warming, then it follows that small cooling events will quickly rebuild the ice sheets.

The P-38, Glacier Girl, was buried under 268 feet of ice after 50 years in Greenland.

[saganite]

This is just outlying data. Ignore it. Besides, the researchers put that face saving statement in at the end to save their reseach grants. Nothing here.

[rightwingextremist1776]

The “threshold of viability” of man made global warming melted away a long time ago....The scam is becoming more visible every day.

[SIDENET]

The fact that recent changes to Greenland's ice sheet mirror its behavior nearly 70 years ago is increasing researchers' confidence and alarm as to what the future holds.

WTF?

Recent warming around the frozen island actually lags behind the global average warming pattern by about 1-2 degrees C but if it fell into synch with global temperatures in a few years, the massive ice sheet might pass its “threshold of viability” – a tipping point where the loss of ice couldn't be stopped.

Okay, so this place doesn't even fit the GW mold, but "if it fell into synch", we are all hosed?

Again, WTF?

[plain talk]

So it cooled from 1940's to the 1980's despite the massive build up of man made CO2?

Bears repeating. You have broken the code. How could this possibly be if man-made CO2 causes global warming?

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

Dim bulbs with degrees alert

[Darksheare]

They’ll spin it, they always do.

[llevrok]

I wonder how long it will take the scientists who made this “discovery” to be ostracized by their peers for not following group-think science?

[RightWhale]

we simply don't know how fast that might happen

But, we know we have to ship $85 billion a year to countries with little visible economy.

[Darksheare]

Let’s see, p-38 buried on glacier in Greenland.
Check.

Warming trend that existed from 1920s to 1940’s.
Check.

It would appear so.
Despite all that coal we burned in the 1800’s and early 1900’s.

[DB]

Interesting...

No mention of the fact it happened all by itself only 80 years ago...

Or that when it happened before it wasn’t due to man...

That just perhaps it is normal feature of nature...

And that the trend didn’t continue and end life as we know it on earth...

A few little details that would seem to matter in the scheme of things...

[avacado]

"It happened before without ill effect and without catastrophic events, yet it bolsters the theory?"

That's exactly what I was thinking? Something is screwy with their logic.