New melt record for Greenland ice sheet (w/ Video)

Nature's just in on the AGW scam.

So they're saying the rate of melting for 2010 was 2 standard deviations above the mean rate of annual melting for the past 32 years.

---

Look at all the dirt on the surface of the ice. There surely is more to do with reduced albedo caused by the sediments carried by the glacier itself, rather than any generalized atmospheric warming. The ice in some shots there is gray to even black.

Are there any dairy farms? A thousand years ago, there were dairy farms. Then it got too cold.

...and they grew chocolate and coffee on plantations ....must have been warmer then. I will find the links somewhere:)

I no longer trust unsubstantiated findings concerning AGW. The wonderful video was scientifically vapid. No comparisons to prior periods and no way to retrieve the data producing the conclusions.... is footnoting passe?

Gee- the glacier is melting- what a surprise! Just as it did about 36000 years ago when we were at the same point on the last cycle of global warming and cooling.

This cycle looks almost exactly like the last one in terms of slope, time to, and global temperature at, the next point of inflecton. ( ie, temperature maximum)

If I remember my history correctly, there were no anthropogenic sources of CO2 36000 years ago-except for exhalation of course.

You can see these cyclical phenomena by checking out the National Geographic issue published last summer showing the last 5 million years of ocean depth, which of course correlate directly to global temperature.

Yeap. So just add in the anthropogenic sources to the greenhouse effect and glacier melting is a real result. It physics after all gentlemen. The calories from the sun are absorbed and trapped by greenhouse gases heating everything. Pretty elementary. The consequences aren't though.

No footnotes needed in this condensed news version. Just like you need no more than your paycheck from the coal company to do your dirty work.

Naaaw... it ain't happenin. It all a bogus goverment plan to control everything about anything and nothing.

Sommerkorn needs to explain how a more than 3 foot rise in oceans is possible in 9 decades time when today's rate of change is currently estimated at 2 mm a year (0.078740157 inch). I have been told by other AGW proponents that it could suddenly jump up - but how?? And what will he say if ocean levels drop in coming years? He will try to wiggle out of it but he cannot. He has staked his all on this claim.

If you follow the trends in the graph; Ice melt just tracks the local temperatures in the short term. Short term we have been having major weather extremes. The extremes are thought to be due Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming from excessive CO2 build up in the atmosphere.

Sea level is dropping in 2010.

Weather extremes have been occurring steadily for many many years. Check the records for what happened in Australia with floods on that river basin - hey, river basins get flooded big time from time to time - and the same thing will be found all over the world. Records before the instruments indicate this. Excessive build up of CO2 may not be the cause of current weather events. The processes of climate are very long-rooted and way more profound than the last 40 yrs or so.

... from 1992-2005 there was a sea level increase each year. 2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level. 2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level. That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level. 2010 could likely show a significant drop global sea level. By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009.

Are there any dairy farms? A thousand years ago, there were dairy farms. Then it got too cold.

They're a little farther down under the glaciers. Wait a few more years and the tops of the cows will begin to show through the ice.

...and they grew chocolate and coffee on plantations ....must have been warmer then. I will find the links somewhere:)

MikeyK and his rear-underscore sockpuppets notwithstanding, did anyone else notice one of the funding sources?

WWF (the source of the 2035 mistaken for 2350 IPCC glacier blunder and like errors). My confidence is bolstered. :)

No footnotes needed in this condensed news version. Just like you need no more than your paycheck from the coal company to do your dirty work.

Right ... and the World Wildlife Fund stuffing a bunch of grant money into Dr. Tedesco's (as well as Sommerkorn's) pockets doesn't equate to a paycheck for performing their dirty work?

Actually, Shootist is right about the dairy farms. During the MWP the settlers in Greenland did establish dairy and sheepfarms. This has been known for some time since archaeological discoveries dating to that time period.

Such is briefly discussed here:
htp://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

Are there any today? I don't know if they actually built the planned dairy complex there yet but as of 2006 they were planning to build one in Greenland.

htp://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

I am not going to argue for GW, or AGW. The heat is there and now. I am opening a network of dealers selling frezzers, air-cons and icecreams to Greenlanders, Siberians and Eskimos. Email me if you are interested in operating a franchise.

Imagine a Dairy Queen supplied with local dairy. That might also be an interesting franchise opportunity--so long as the same thing that happened a thousand years, give or take, ago does not happen again.

So far there has been around a thousand-year cycle or warming and cooling over there since sometime after the end of the last ice age. Well, at least three of them show up in the ice cores.

I also discussed moving to Greenland with my wife the other day. She stared at me in disbelief until I showed her data showing that temperatures there were warmer at the time than where we now live this year. :)

...also look at the graph above, stand on your head and what melt?

...also look at the graph above, stand on your head and what melt?

Interestingly enough, only a MikeyK sockpuppet dolt would suggest reading a graph upside down.

Whoops! Come to think of it, someone in climate science already has done something like that! That somebody would be Michael Mann, who inserted the Finland proxy data upside down in Mann et al., 2009.

I'll bet that just burns you up to read that, doesn't it? :)

If a con man suggested that a town was going to be flooded and the people should give him a ton of money to save them, and in fact the water levels were normal 3 out of the last 5 years and actually went down on 2 out of the last 5 years he would be run out of town on a rail.

But Climate Scientists who lie about impending doom get even more funding!

WWF climate specialist Dr. Martin Sommerkorn...

What a load of rubbish!

Why would this be downranked to 1?

... from 1992-2005 there was a sea level increase each year. 2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level. 2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level. That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level. 2010 could likely show a significant drop global sea level. By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009.

Can you cite a source for the info? I'd certainly like to see some current data on sea level.

This is the latest graph I could find ECOnservative:
httDELETEp://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg

NotParker

The Trolls are out in force, slamming all critics. They are fearful that they are going to be found out, and have to get a real job in a real economy once the governmental subsidy taps gets choked by the GOP.

How sad!

Source for my post:

htt_Delete_p://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/2010-sea-level-largest-drop-ever-recorded/

(I would have referenced it but the spam filter killed the URL ... thanks MikeyK)

Why would this be downranked to 1?

... from 1992-2005 there was a sea level increase each year. 2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level. 2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level. That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level. 2010 could likely show a significant drop global sea level. By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009.

1 year is not statistically significant, that is why you were downranked.

Septic spreading hogshit.

I year not significant, if you are a butterfly, yes!

Risk is dependant of the expected life of the exposed.

...If the average life of man was 500,000 years, he would never cross the road as he is sure to be run over by a car... Dawkings - The Ancestor's Tale

But septic pig's eye know best, top in class in red-brick technikon!! What a heuvon!

But septic pig's eye know best, top in class in red-brick technikon!! What a heuvon!

Or we could listen to a retired coal miner like yourself....

1 year is not statistically significant, that is why you were downranked.

The article claims a 1000mm rise will occur in the next 89 years ... which is 11mm a year.

When the sea level DROPS by 3.5mm it is significant.

It means for 2010 they are now 14.5mm behind the pace they need for their prediction to come true.

Downranking/censoring inconvenient facts is quite typical of the warmenizers.

1 year is not statistically significant, that is why you were downranked.

The article claims a 1000mm rise will occur in the next 89 years ... which is 11mm a year.

When the sea level DROPS by 3.5mm it is significant.

It means for 2010 they are now 14.5mm behind the pace they need for their prediction to come true.

Downranking/censoring inconvenient facts is quite typical of the warmenizers.

You don't seem to understand what statistically significant means. The global temp for 1998 by itself is not statistically significant, the rate of temperature increase from 1980-1998 is statistically significant because there is a large enough sample size to discover a trend that will have merit in prediction.

A single year's sealevel drop is not significant because it could readily be offset by any number of preceeding or proceeding years.

Understand?

A single year's sealevel drop is not significant because it could readily be offset by any number of preceeding or proceeding years.

Understand?

Sea Level

2006.7507 26.391
2010.7415 28.119

1.8mm in 4 years - .45mm per year which is 20% of the long term average.

ht_DELETE_tp://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.txt

But septic pig's eye know best, top in class in red-brick technikon!! What a heuvon!

Uhhh OK Uhhh. Oh sorry, Heuvon is like Eunron but without the you and add some hay.

Sea Level; here is what you need to know. Just 'google' for keywords "sea level rise map". For extra credit do google images.

Typical of the global warming deniers. Anything science that hits you square in the face as truth, just make something up to deny it. Just like your brother smacking you in the face with a cold fish screaming "WAKEUP" fool.

Here you go, this is what a 100m rise in sea level would look like (if it ever came to that.)

vrstudio.buffalo.edu/~depape/warming/100meter.html

Here is an interesting observation: From 1992 to 1997 everthing is negative. Then it slowly rises to a boil tracking Global Warming rise in temps.

ht_DELETE_tp://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.txt

Howhot,so if the sea level rise 100m you will finally be able to wash yourself?

What a lot of rubbish!

Come on Loodt..poor poor Loodt. Answer my question- Has there been significant warming since either 1996,1997,1999, 2000 etc? You constantly cherrypick 1998 to 'prove' your myth so just answer this one question.

Mickey Mouse comments from a person with a cartoon name and mind!

100 metres sea level rise? You'll have to get Gaia to take the orbit of Mercury for that to happen!

Here you go, this is what a 100m rise in sea level would look like (if it ever came to that.)

vrstudio.buffalo.edu/~depape/warming/100meter.html

That is laughably imposssible. a 100 meter rise would require more water than the Earth has available.

A single year's sealevel drop is not significant because it could readily be offset by any number of preceeding or proceeding years.

Understand?

Sea Level

2006.7507 26.391
2010.7415 28.119

1.8mm in 4 years - .45mm per year which is 20% of the long term average.

ht_DELETE_tp://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.txt

So you also don't understand how to read the raw data.

Do you know what the tides were for those two sectional readings? Is there a reason why you ignored every other number in between?

If I do what you did:
2005.8820 24.470
2006.8050 27.466

Wow, look at that 3mm rise in a year, the same year in which you said the levels dropped!

But you and I both know that's a bullshit reply and manipulates the reader through omission of relevance.

Wow, look at that 3mm rise in a year, the same year in which you said the levels dropped!

Nope. I said they only rose 1.8mm in 4 years.

I picked those 4 dates by looking at the last publish value and then went back to the same time in the year in 2006.

.45mm a year is a long, long way from the 11mm a year rise necessary to get 1m of rise by 2100.

And it is about 1/4th of the longe term average rise ... the rise that has been going on for 20,000 years.

Nope. I said they only rose 1.8mm in 4 years.

Really?

2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level.

Nope, looks liek you did say it.

I picked those 4 dates by looking at the last publish value and then went back to the same time in the year in 2006.

Right so you ignored the fact that those measurements are not averaged over tides, or seasonal variation. The data is useless if it isn't properly used and cherry picked.

.45mm a year is a long, long way from the 11mm a year rise necessary to get 1m of rise by 2100.

Predicted sea level rise ranges from 90mm to 880mm by 2100. Current annual sea level rise (low estimate) is 2.1mm /yr.
So assuming there's no change in mass balance of glaciers or atmospheric H2O average content over that time period you're looking at a low end estimate of 189mm. But, mass balance is still being explored and is very variable based on regional conditions. 880mm is a possibility, worst case scenario only.

2006.7236 26.640
2007.7280 25.493
2008.7054 23.759
2009.7370 31.748
2010.7415 28.119

My mistake. 1.479mm since 2006.

.37mm per year.

Even less close to 11mm per year.

(And I did picked the data average for tides and seasonal variation - check the reference)

And it is about 1/4th of the longe term average rise ... the rise that has been going on for 20,000 years.

Well here's the problem with that. During those 20,000 years there were points in time at which the sea level fell, and points in time where it rose dramatically.

Picking arbitrary year counts and figures with little grasp of the actual data will not serve to exemplify your point.

(And I did picked the data average for tides and seasonal variation - check the reference)

No you didn't. You picked the text file of individual data points with no smoothing employed.

Here's the graph for that data set with the proper overlays.
htp://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg

From the article:

"WWF climate specialist Dr. Martin Sommerkorn said "Sea level rise is expected to top 1 meter by 2100,"

1 meter = 1000mm

WWF = green lobby group

No you didn't. You picked the text file of individual data points with no smoothing employed.

Nope. I picked the data set with the seasonal signal removed and inverse barometer applied.

Why smooth? I'm interested in the last 4 years ... the peak of the green insanity lobbying.

"WWF climate specialist Dr. Martin Sommerkorn said "Sea level rise is expected to top 1 meter by 2100,"

1 meter = 1000mm

WWF = green lobby group

Got a research paper? After all, a Senator questioned whether Costa Rica would capsize if we sent more troops to the various bases on the island.

Some people say stupid things, that's why science is based on research paperwork and not commentary on the news, magazines, or blogs. That stance and comment are absent from the linked research paper. Now the linked research paper states that over 1 meter would be a high possibility, and makes references to other research, none of which say unequivocally that 1 meter will happen. So this is another prediction via media, and not science.

Why smooth? I'm interested in the last 4 years ... the peak of the green insanity lobbying.

No, that'd be the 70's. The media is the one hyping the doom and gloom prediction machine.

Sea Level rise is now (the last 4 years) miniscule and within the margin for error meaning it is essentially ZERO.

All predictions for doom are NULL and VOID.

Got a research paper?

Sea Level rise is now (the last 4 years) miniscule and within the margin for error meaning it is essentially ZERO.

So that's a no then?

Why smooth? I'm interested in the last 4 years ... the peak of the green insanity lobbying.

No, that'd be the 70's. The media is the one hyping the doom and gloom prediction machine.

All predictions for doom are NULL and VOID.

Because they come from the media, not science. Why are you listening to the media instead of the science?

Actually, WWF funded the study.

"The study, with different aspects sponsored by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ..."

Actually, WWF funded the study.

"The study, with different aspects sponsored by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ..."

Still waiting on the research paper you're referring to.

If the WWF said it, great, nice they have an expressed opinion. That doesn't make the opinion fact.

If I want info on whales, I don't ask Greenpeace, or that douchebag, wanna-be pirate who runs the Sea Shepphard Society, I ask a marine biologist who specializes on whales.

So if you don't have a research paper to show me, you're jsut blowing media smoke.

Septic ...jsut...?

Show us you can write English

Heuvon!

If the WWF said it, great, nice they have an expressed opinion. That doesn't make the opinion fact

I agree. All statements uttered by WWF are suspect. Thats why I like to refute them.

I also must say that all published papers funded by the WWF are suspect.

I agree. All statements uttered by WWF are suspect. Thats why I like to refute them.

Great, doesn't change the dialogue in regards to science. So while you're refuting the WWF and spreading the religion of science denial either intentionally or inadvertantly, you're ignoring all of the data that shows AGCC is an accurate theory. Stop pandering to morons and politicians, which on a Venn diagram would appear as almost a single circle.

Septic ...jsut...?

Show us you can write English

Heuvon!

Show us you're not retarded. By the way, ignoramus, it's Huevon and would be an apt descriptor for your slack posting style and lack of intelligible response.

spreading the religion of science denial

Science is about refuting theories more than proposing them.

Only the ignorant call people deniers for being skeptical.

AGCC is theory that is being shredding by thousands of skeptics.

What would call a theory that uses scary claims like massive sea level rise that isn't even happening?

A failure.

A theory that claims snow will be a thing of the past ... and then claims snow is evidence of climate change when massive amounts of snow falls?

A fraud.

A theory that call itself "Global Warming" and then changes its name when the warming stops dead for 13 years?

A joke.

spreading the religion of science denial

Science is about refuting theories more than proposing them.

No, it is about explaining reality through observation and reason, no more, no less.

Only the ignorant call people deniers for being skeptical.

You mean like people who are skeptical of evolution or the holocaust? There comes a time in life where your preconceptions are tested. What you do during that time determines whether you are a denier or skeptical. Skeptics educate themselves and reevaluate. Deniers do what you do.

AGCC is theory that is being shredding by thousands of skeptics.

No, and you know who you sound lke right now? Ben Stein when he talks about evolution.

Your three "what do you call it when..." questions are all from the MEDIA. None of those predictions are from research. You are repeating bullshit from the Daily Mail in UK, and FOX news in the US. Don't think so? Show me the research papers that make those claims.

No, it is about explaining reality through observation and reason, no more, no less.

No experiments? Ever?

No experiments to prove the theory false? Ever?

Wow. Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

No, it is about explaining reality through observation and reason, no more, no less.

No experiments? Ever? No experiments to prove the theory false? Ever?

You don't seem to understand what an experiment is. An experiment is a controlled process that is OBSERVED for data.

Can you name an experiment that isn't observed for data? Can you name something gained from an experiment that is not an observation, or the result of reason applied to observation?

Wow. Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Then you certainly haven't heard many things, have you?

Observations and reason utilized to explain reality, nothing more, nothing less.

Can you name an experiment that isn't observed for data?

Mann's tree ring proxies quit working after 1960. So Mann and his Hockey Team quit using post-1960 tree rings to divine temperature and placed the suspect temperature record onto their graphs.

They deliberately and maliciously quit observing and updating the data from the experiment.

Thats pure climate science. All fraud.

Go look. They have quit updating their proxies when all it takes is a couple hours of driving to drill new cores in the magical AGW-proving trees.

Mann's tree ring proxies quit working after 1960.

That is only due to the Atmospheric testing of Nuclear weapons during the 1950's that obscured the C14 isotope levels since then.

No dude, you have it wrong. Mann's hockeystick is exactly what we will get.

No, and you know who you sound lke right now? Ben Stein when he talks about evolution

Changing the subject again? You really like to marginalize people by comparing them to celebrities with questionable character, don't you? I don't see how Ben Stein has anything to do with this. You sound like John Stewart or David Letterman. You're a little funny, but you need to come up with new lines.

Changing the subject again?

The subject has been Not Parker's anti-science bent. The comparison is apt.

You really like to marginalize people by comparing them to celebrities with questionable character, don't you?

When the shoe fits...

When the shoe fits...

Pot: Hey kettle?

Kettle: What do you want Pot?

Pot: You know what you look like?

Kettle: Oh, no you don't. We're not talking about this again.

Pot: Hey kettle?

Kettle: What do you want Pot?

Pot: You know what you look like?

Kettle: Oh, no you don't. We're not talking about this again.

Are you insinuating that I am anti-scientific in nature or in stance on the question of human input into the climate system?

No, I'm pointing out that your argument was little more than name-calling. Comparing him to Ben Stein, as a creationist, is just the flat earther or nazi holocaust denier accusation wrapped in a different color cloth.

You know I've always disagreed with you when you stoop to that level. It's a pet peve of mine.

No, I'm pointing out that your argument was little more than name-calling. Comparing him to Ben Stein, as a creationist, is just the flat earther or nazi holocaust denier accusation wrapped in a different color cloth.

So you're saying you agree with his definition of science?

No, lol, of course not. I just wouldn't argue the point by calling him Ben Stein. :)

I agree with you about science. You KNOW I don't like the way you compare people to other people in order to tear them down rhetorically. That's a common tactic for both the "deniers" and the "alarmists". (I really hate both of those terms too)

No, lol, of course not. I just wouldn't argue the point by calling him Ben Stein. :)

As I said above, the shoe fits. People with a backward depiction of science are risible. People with a backward depiction of science, posting on science sites are deplorable.

Here you go, this is what a 100m rise in sea level would look like (if it ever came to that.)

vrstudio.buffalo.edu/~depape/warming/100meter.html

That is laughably imposssible. a 100 meter rise would require more water than the Earth has available.

Actually, 100 meters is not that impossible if the south-pole glaciers melt. I agree 100 meters seems extreme, but if global warming melts the Greenland, and the Antarctic then we are in serious stuff anyway.

To all the other "Pro-global-warming" people, when global warming is serious enough for you to even care, Have fun.

You know what GSwift7, if there was a common sense debate, we would all recognize that there is something odd happening with our local weather, like record breaking heat in the summer, and record breaking snow in the winter. We would also see ocean rise specifically with islands in the India and African costs flooded and evacuated. The we would also agree that glaciers are melting faster that the should be, and the Greenland ice-sheet is melting more rapidly than anyone would expect.

The bottom line is the preponderance of evidences is overwhelming that global warming is real, and is having an impact on human society. Why fight overwhelming evidence at the consequence of you fellow man?

To repeat;

The bottom line is the preponderance of evidences is overwhelming that global warming is real, and is having an impact on human society. Why fight overwhelming evidence at the consequence of your fellow man's ignorance?

The bottom line is the preponderance of evidences is overwhelming that global warming is real, and is having an impact on human society.

Actually, as of the end of January, the earth is slightly cooler than it was in the early 1980s.

ht_DELETE_tp://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/uah-update-for-january-2011-global-temperatures-in-freefall/

Not Parker- the temperature fall during a particularly strong La Nina is not unexpected. What is unusual is that La Nina's do not produce record low global temperatures in the same way that recent El Nino's do.....care to explain?

Lol!! Obviously Loodt can't explain!...keep up the one star response, better than your usual bulldust!

Not Parker- the temperature fall during a particularly strong La Nina is not unexpected. What is unusual is that La Nina's do not produce record low global temperatures in the same way that recent El Nino's do.....care to explain?

The 2007 La Nina saw the global temperature drop .7C.

The current La Nina has seen a .55C drop so far, and it isn't over yet.

Both drops were big enough to erase the supposed 30 years of .2C rise per decade claimed by AGW cultists.

If those drops aren't big enough for you just wait, temperature's lag solar lows and this solar low is similar to the one just before 1910, the lowest temperature in the 20th century. The NAO and PDO are negative.

The next 30 years are gonna be COLD!

The 2007 La Nina saw the global temperature drop .7C.

The current La Nina has seen a .55C drop so far, and it isn't over yet.

Both drops were big enough to erase the supposed 30 years of .2C rise per decade claimed by AGW cultists.

If those drops aren't big enough for you just wait, temperature's lag solar lows and this solar low is e in the 20th century. The NAO and PDO are negative.

The next 30 years are gonna be COLD!

And given all of that, 2010 was tied for for the hottest year EVER in HUMAN RECORDED HISTORY!!!! OOOHHH OH OHHH, and its just the... get this... just the beginning.

Cause? what cause. It's man made. Can man stop it?

And given all of that, 2010 was tied for for the hottest year EVER in HUMAN RECORDED HISTORY!!!!

More like airports and hot urban centers(where most of the thermometers are these day) are a fraction of a degree warmer than when all the thermometers were in green fields.

It was the coldest December in UK history.

Not Parker..LOL..so satellites are near airports and urban centres!!..and how much of the Earth surface is covered by the UK...oh and tell us where january 2011 came in...just wondering ...