Reply With Quote
I found these images in another story which illustrates the point I've been making in another thread...
Greenland ice melt 'unprecedented', says NASA
Sounds cyclical to me.
I suggest someone look up the definition of "unprecedented."
the infinite wisdom of the dumbest poster on spurstalk...
gone west
I found these images in another story which illustrates the point I've been making in another thread...
Greenland ice melt 'unprecedented', says NASA
Sounds cyclical to me.
I suggest someone look up the definition of "unprecedented."
You just can't stop the stupid. Read the first line of the NASA article. Thanks.
This one?
Almost all of Greenland's surface ice cover has melted at some point this summer - twice as much as usual. It's the largest melt ever seen in more than 30 years of satellite observations.
Or, this one?
For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations.
So, you're suggesting the use of "unprecedented," in the le, was just meant to explain such melting was unprecedented during the 30 years of satellite records?
Please tell me that's what you're suggesting...
Here's NASA's le:
Wouldn't this have been a better le?Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
It's certainly more accurate -- not to mention it has nice alliteration.Satellites See Cyclical Sesquicentennial Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
leave to our resident little left wing socialist to skew the facts:
"Even Greenland's coldest and highest place, Summit station, showed melting. Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/ice-m...#ixzz21fD4MjI7
"
You're down to complaining about how good a le is. Pretty funny that Darrin did the same thing. Its an unprecedented satellite observation. I guess that upsets you guys but they told you in the article that it happened before.
Yeah, go with that Manny.
I posted it as just another example of the way in which AGCC proponents are misleading the public.
That it was a cyclical phenomenon, occurring every 150 years, wasn't disclosed until the next to the last paragraph. The rest of the article is nothing but alarmist pap.
In fact, in the article posted by jack sommerset, thinkprogress.com quotes James Hansen explaining away the cyclical nature of the event as being due to something called "scientific reticence." You must have not got the memo.
Face it, NASA satellites record an event that happens every 150 years and they try to sensationalize it into an "unprecedented" event.
You were right, you.just.can't.stop.the.stupid.
They're misleading hte public by giving you the information that its cyclical? WOW.
Technically, you are correct -- it is "unprecedented" in the satellite record, but it is not unprecedented in the historical record. Which do you think they were trying to convey?
Yonivore never bothers to read past the head line so this is the most obvious case of projection I've ever seen.
NASA expects the average person can read and does so. They didn't account for Yonivore.
Considering the first sentence that should be obvious.
Oh yeah, and the fact that they state its happened before.
Actually, I read all the way to the end. How else would I know how misleading they had been in the rest of the article.
How 'bout that "scientific reticence" explanation; up to speed yet?
I think AGCC proponents and NASA count on the general population not reading all the way to the end...or past the headline. In fact, I think there was a study (probably several) that discovered most people don't read beyond the headlines and even fewer make it past the first paragraph.
It's a misleading article. Why is it important to note satellite technology has recorded an unprecedented measurement over a 30-year history?
Then there's the ominous last sentence in the article which serves to discount everything just said about the empirical evidence laid out in the paragraph before.
The implication is, even though this only happens every 150 years, or so, it's expected we'll be seeing more of this -- you know -- due to AGCC ::wink::wink::nudge::nudge::"But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
Well, I do suppose that's better than the Algore-ish proclamation Greenland will be a arid wasteland, void of vegetation, by the year 2020.
Straw heaped upon straw. Keep going please.
In the context of global climate, I'll bet that satellite saw a lot of "unprecedented" events since it entered geosynchronous orbit thirty years ago.
My point was, why it is significant in the context of a conversation about Greenland's ice sheet melting, particularly when the kind of melting recorded isn't, itself, unprecedented?
:LOL @ at satellites imaging Greenland in geosynchronous orbits.
Keep going.
With the exception of George, they know what you are talking about. They know they can't put the whole global warming, climate control thing over any huge timeline so they crunch the window,move the goal post and that be that. God bless
How this kind of gets reported by the media:
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...120388,00.html
(WASHINGTON) — Nearly all of Greenland's massive ice sheet suddenly started melting a bit this month, a freak event that surprised scientists.
Even Greenland's coldest and highest place, Summit station, showed melting. Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.
Three satellites show what NASA calls unprecedented melting of the ice sheet that blankets the island, starting on July 8 and lasting four days. Most of the thick ice remains. While some ice usually melts during the summer, what was unusual was that the melting happened in a flash and over a widespread area.
"You literally had this wave of warm air wash over the Greenland ice sheet and melt it," NASA ice scientist Tom Wagner said Tuesday.
The ice melt area went from 40 percent of the ice sheet to 97 percent in four days, according to NASA. Until now, the most extensive melt seen by satellites in the past three decades was about 55 percent.
Wagner said researchers don't know how much of Greenland's ice melted, but it seems to be freezing again.
"When we see melt in places that we haven't seen before, at least in a long period of time, it makes you sit up and ask what's happening?" NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said. It's a big signal, the meaning of which we're going to sort out for years to come."
About the same time, a giant iceberg broke off from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland. And the National Snow and Ice Data Center on Tuesday announced that the area filled with Arctic sea ice continues near a record low.
Wagner and other scientists said because this Greenland-wide melting has happened before they can't yet determine if this is a natural rare event or one triggered by man-made global warming. But they do know that the edges of Greenland's ice sheets have already been thinning because of climate change.
Summer in Greenland has been freakishly warm so far.That's because of frequent high pressure systems that have parked over the island, bringing warm clear weather that melts ice and snow, explained University of Georgia climatologist Thomas Mote.
He and others say it's similar to the high pressure systems that have parked over the American Midwest bringing record-breaking warmth and drought.
Ohio State University ice scientist Jason Box, who returned Tuesday from a three-week visit, said he ditched his cold weather gear for the cotton pants that he normally dons in Nevada.
"It was sunny and warm and all the locals were talking about how sunny it was," Box said after getting off a plane. "Beyond T-shirt weather."
1. It DID surprise scientists.
2. It has been freakishly warm.
I don't think you guys understand that an event that occurs on average once every 150 years isn't exactly commonplace. Why is it noteworthy? Because whether or not it has occurred before, this is the exact type of event you would expect in a warming climate. Its going to occur again in the near future, and again after that. This little thing called thermodynamics is going to make sure of that.
You guys are rich. Those scientists said all the right things. They didn't attribute the single event to AGW. They maintained that it has occurred before. Yet, its not good enough. They're not trying to scare anyone. They've said that most of the melt on the actual top of the ice sheet likely simply refroze once temps dropped back down but you're all still foaming at the mouth because they pointed out its the first time we've observed this. The only records we have of an event like this are from ice cores and not direct observation. THAT is why it is noteworthy.
How can it surprise scientist if it happens every 150 years. Didn't scientist determine the earth is over 4 billion years old. With that knowledge I would say its pretty common. God bless
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
