Reply With Quote
Yes, I resort to name calling as well. However, when is the last time it wasn't me responding in kind? It is a weakness of mine, that I have a hard time to just let bullies rule.
I'll still calling WC a dumb though.
Yes, I resort to name calling as well. However, when is the last time it wasn't me responding in kind? It is a weakness of mine, that I have a hard time to just let bullies rule.
ing monkey-faced bully!I'll still calling WC a dumb though.
But sometimes I'm a smartass...I'll still calling WC a dumb though.
Probably more often than you realize!
I was pointing out that the larger planets do have an effect. As far as they are form the sun, they change gravitational center, in and out of the sun.
Now the Earth-Moon relationship is always inside the earth, but the other planets will alter its effect somewhat as well.
If you say so. I never gave it such a thought.
Someone did actually talk to her
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ery-150-years/2:10 p.m. | Updated | Lora Koenig of NASA just sent this note providing the reference underlying her comment about past summer melting episodes at the summit (the spot on the giant ice sheet least vulnerable to melting):
The study I am citing is Alley and Anandakrishnan, 1995, “Variations in melt-layer frequency in the GISP2 ice core: implications for Holocene summer temperatures in central Greenland” published in the Annals of Glaciology for establishing the long-term frequency of melt events at Summit , Greenland. And Clausen et al., 1988 Glaciological Investigations in the Crete area, Central Greenland: A search for a new deep-drilling site also published in Annals of Glaciology for an early reference to the 1889 melt event though as mentioned in the press release Kaitlin Keegan and her advisor Mary Albert at Dartmouth University have more recent research on this event and please contact them for additional specific information.
My comment shows that melt events have occurred at Summit in the past and I have quoted the longest-term average frequency of ~150 years (exactly 153 from the paper) over the past 10,000. Since this is an ice core record that frequency is for the location of Summit only. The frequency ranges from ~80 to 250 years over different sections of the GISP2 ice core, please see the paper for specifics.
If the events frequency of occurrence are larger than the 150 its going to be hard to make a point thats a 150 year cycle.
The best way I can put it to you is to say that San Antonio receives measureable snowfall once ever ~5 years (this is from memory - it may be different). The frequency of a measurable snowfall in San Antonio would then be 5 years. However, there is no cycle that leads to San Antonio snowfall. The weather conditions that allow this to happen simply occur every so often.
Its the same with Greenland. Every so often, melt happens. So when this melt event happened, they were very quick to point out that we have records that show it has occurred in the past and that this event was not (ALONE - I'd argue that when considered with other factors of what is happening near that NP the case is much stronger. Kind of how you can't convict someone of murder based on the fact that they have a gun but if you all of a sudden find a bullet that was fired from that gun lodged in a skull you have a better case and its simply one piece of evidence.) indicative of AGW. However, the melt is a rare event. If it occurs again in the coming years, then it becomes a lot clearer that it is not simply natural variability.
Which leads me back to the original argument, before we got side-tracked on the definition of cycle; the media is alarmist and misleading over NASA's report and have sensationalized an event, (with the intent of conflating it with AGCC), that may have absolutely nothing to do with AGCC.
That was my point.
For the record, I didn't ask to you avoid it. I merely pointed out the practice doesn't help you get a point across.
Your initial point was that NASA was sensationalist when they were anything but. I couldn't care less about the media.
Wrong. What's important is the strict definition of "unprecedented" (in the satellite record, that is) and "cyclical".
Forget the blue Darrin?
Apparently it mattered quite a bit since its what caused you both to get up in arms. NASA clearly stated that melt had occurred before but because they used that word in the headline of their press release you both got very upset.Wrong. What's important is the strict definition of "unprecedented" (in the satellite record, that is) and "cyclical".
So I find this post rather ironic.
I think the construct of the NASA paper was a bit misleading and sensational in that it didn't address that this event has occurred before -- many times -- on roughly the same time table -- for 10,000 years -- at the beginning of the article.
Being "stunned" and "wondering" is a bit out of character for scientific reporting of an event that could have certainly been predicted, based on a history running back 10,000 years.
That was my point.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...jul_greenland/
Original press release from NASA does address that.Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12.
"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."
The event couldn't be predicted. They're stunned because they've never seen this before and were not expecting it. You think that because it occurred before this is an unremarkable event which is not the case. Its very rare (once in 150 years on average is not common - events we freak out about on a regular basis are orders of magnitudes more common than this).
We also didn't know how quickly the melt would start and end. We can see that the ice has melt lines in the past through ice cores, but nothing more. They tell us nothing up the months/days prior to the melt events because the spatial resolution of an ice core is on the order of years. So I have no doubts that these scientists were very surprised when they viewed this event and watched in unfold for the first time.
I know you don't consume your climate news from the mainstream media but, the vast majority of us do.
And, I just refer you to the ThinkProgress.com article posted earlier in this thread which, by the way, claims to be reporting an ABC News report.
We can't all be climate geeks -- most of us don't want to be -- so, here's what I draw from my experience in this thread;
1) NASA reported an event in Greenland that occurs, on average, every 150 years. It was significant enough to report because it was the first time the event was recorded by satellite technology -- NOT because it had anything to do with anthropogenic global climate change.
2) The media turned full Chicken Little and conflated the report with some cataclysmic event that surprised scientists and portends some future horrors yet revealed.
ABC News On Stunning Greenland Ice Melt: ‘Scientists Say They’ve Never Seen Anything Like This Before’
But, I completely agree, the original NASA report isn't alarmist. But, again, people don't consume their climate news from NASA.com. Just saying.
Fair enough. My gripe is principally with how such news gets filtered to the masses.
Well with that I don't have an issue with your gripe. I ed about the Rolling Stone climate article posted here last week. The Media is sensationalist with pretty much every subject available.
Just a little fuel for the fire....ice....whatever.
Bad news, global warming enthusiasts. The world was actually warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now. In fact, the world has been on a cooling trend for the past 2,000 years, according to new research.
The study says that tree-rings hold the secret to understanding the history of climate change, and that the rings of fossilized trees show that the earth actually used to be much warmer than it is today, and has even been slowly cooling down. “Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun,” notes the Daily Mail.
http://www.inquisitr.com/274215/bad-...ars-now-study/
Or if you prefer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...trial-age.html
This again?
I blame the media.
Yes.
People like you need to be reminded of such facts.
'
Manny I cant help it if most what you post is . Keep trying one of
these days you may get the hang of it.
The man in the photo below had many believing he was acually a captain of a ship. I knew better even at a young age. Can you spot Chris Duel?
Last edited by mouse; 07-27-2012 at 10:34 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
