Greenland melting breaks record four weeks before season's end

Aug 15, 2012
A supraglacial lake over the Greenland ice sheet in the Kangerlussuaq area at 1500 m elevation photographed on July 21, 2012. The lake feeds a stream that will deliver meltwater to the low elevations where it will either flow to the ocean on the surface or it will dive into the ice to contribute to the development of the englacial hydrological system. Credit: Marco Tedesco

Melting over the Greenland ice sheet shattered the seasonal record on August 8 – a full four weeks before the close of the melting season, reports Marco Tedesco, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at The City College of New York.

The melting season in Greenland usually lasts from June – when the first puddles of meltwater appear – to early-September, when temperatures cool. This year, cumulative melting in the first week in August had already exceeded the record of 2010, taken over a full season, according to Professor Tedesco's ongoing analysis.

"With more yet to come in August, this year's overall melting will fall way above the old records. That's a goliath year – the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979," said Professor Tedesco.

This spells a change for the face of southern Greenland, he added, with the ice sheet thinning at its edges and lakes on top of glaciers proliferating.

Professor Tedesco noted that these changes jibe with what most of the models predict – the difference is how quickly this seems to be happening.

To quantify the changes, he calculated the duration and extent of melting throughout the season across the whole ice sheet, using data collected by microwave satellite sensors.

This 'cumulative melting index' can be seen as a measure of the 'strength' of the melting season: the higher the index, the more melting has occurred. (The index is defined as the number of days when melting occurs multiplied by the total area subject to melting.)

Dr. Thomas Mote, Professor of Geography at the University of Georgia and colleague of Professor Tedesco, confirmed that the cumulative melt in 2012 had surpassed that of 2010 using a similar analysis.

The August 8th record differs from NASA's announcement of unprecedented melting in mid-July, reported by Professor Tedesco and other researchers. Then, they found that the had melted over 97 percent of its surface.

"That event was exceptional in the sense that it was an extremely rare event," said Professor Tedesco. "Imagine Rio de Janeiro under a layer of snow and you get the idea."

The extreme melting detected in mid-July, on the other hand, generated liquid water that refroze after a few days. "This changed the physical properties of the snowpack – making a slushy layer that turned into an icy crust after refreezing – but very likely it did not add to the runoff of meltwater that makes sea levels rise."

The cumulative melting index, on the other hand, does account for water flowing to the ocean. The same meltwater can affect ice dynamics by lubricating the base of the and speeding its slide toward the sea.

This year, Greenland experienced extreme melting in nearly every region – the west, northwest and northeast of the continent – but especially at high elevations. In most years, the ice and snow at high elevations in southern Greenland melt for a few days at most. This year it has already gone on for two months.

"We have to be careful because we are only talking about a couple of years and the history of Greenland happened over millennia," cautioned Professor Tedesco. "But as far as we know now, the warming that we see in the Artic is responsible for triggering processes that enhance and for the feedback mechanisms that keep it going. Looking over the past few years, the exception has become part of the norm."

Explore further: Sea-level surge at Antarctica linked to icesheet loss

More information: Greenland Melting www.greenlandmelting.com

Related Stories

Extreme melting on Greenland ice sheet, team reports

Oct 25, 2011

The Greenland ice sheet can experience extreme melting even when temperatures don't hit record highs, according to a new analysis by Dr. Marco Tedesco, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences ...

Recommended for you

NASA radar system surveys Napa Valley quake area

17 hours ago

NASA scientists are conducting an airborne survey of earthquake fault displacements in the Napa Valley area of Northern California using a sophisticated radar system developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, ...

Aging Africa

Aug 29, 2014

In the September issue of GSA Today, Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont–Burlington and colleagues present a cosmogenic view of erosion, relief generation, and the age of faulting in southernmost Africa ...

NASA animation shows Hurricane Marie winding down

Aug 29, 2014

NOAA's GOES-West satellite keeps a continuous eye on the Eastern Pacific and has been covering Hurricane Marie since birth. NASA's GOES Project uses NOAA data and creates animations and did so to show the end of Hurricane ...

User comments : 74

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

lengould100
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 15, 2012
Ouch! I'm in eastern central Canada (Toronto), near upstream of the Greenland weather pattern. It's been a strange summer, June and July very sunny, hot, with little cloud cover and almost no precip. I'd guess a) it might be fair to hold off panicing until we get more proof of a long-term pattern. b) weather has certainly demonstrated some REALLY wierd events over the past few years, like no snow cover at all here all last winter. I don't think that's EVER happened here before.

This is looking bad. If present levels of GHG's are already having these effects, then the future is not even as bright as George W. ;)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (27) Aug 15, 2012
Shaddap... Commie...

Global Warming ain't happenin cause it is against the laws of Conservative Economics.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (15) Aug 15, 2012
This is looking bad. If present levels of GHG's are already having these effects, then the future is not even as bright as George W. ;)


Could be, but as the scientist above said: don't jump to conclusions.

No argument from me about the IQ of just about any politician in recent memory, but the record seems to show that being smart and/or well-educated doesn't correlate with how good or bad they are at the job. Even conservatives mainly agree that Bill Clinton did a good job, but was he especially bright? Jimmy Carter was exceptionally bright, but his performance is seen as an embarassment to liberals. Reagan didn't have any special qualifications, but the Berlin Wall is gone, and Germany is a country again.

Besides, G.W. hasn't been President for a few years now. You do know that, right?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (20) Aug 15, 2012
Let me see if I can put this in the perspective of the deniers. This, appears to me, to give them a few years of ammunition. First, they will claim the Greenland melt and the Arctic melt are "weather" not climate. Then, next year when the melt is way above that of the past decade but not equal to this year they will look back at this year and tell us that the earth is actually cooling because 2013 is not as bad as 2012. Do I have that about right?

The reality is that this is a trend that is statistically significant and is following the models nicely.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 15, 2012
"The reality is that this is a trend that is statistically significant and is following the models nicely."

I may have used the word accurately instead of nicely TD, if this becomes an annual trend there won't be anything nice about it...
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (28) Aug 15, 2012
Any 300 year old dairy farms yet? No? Still too cold.

"The polar bears will be fine". -Freeman Dyson (is smarter than you)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 15, 2012
How could there be 300 year old dairy farms when 300 years ago there were no dairy farms 300 years ago?

"Any 300 year old dairy farms yet? No? Still too cold." - Shootard

And they wonder why they are called Tards.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2012
The solar cycle actually peaks next year, and there will be more CO2 as well. This year is just a "warm-up"...pun intended.
rubberman
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2012
Sorry TD, I should have acknowledged that your post is also spot on.
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 15, 2012
Hey fruitcake denialists, head over to "Wunderground dot com" and check out Dr. Jeff Masters' most recent blog entry, where he discusses Needles, California just broke the WORLD RECORD for hottest precipitation ever recorded....it rained at 115f and 11% humidity, which is 6f above the previous WORLD RECORD, which was also set this year a few months ago...

No AGW, nope, none at all...

Broke a freaking WORLD record by 6f...

What more evidence do we need?

I was a skeptic a few years ago, but now I'm convinced it's all true.
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (38) Aug 15, 2012


What more evidence do we need?

I was a skeptic a few years ago, but now I'm convinced it's all true.

- Lurker

Well, I'm still a skeptic, not a denialist). Everyone that you're calling a denialist is really a skeptic. Mostly we're skeptical of global warming as mostly caused by humans. Global warming happens, just as global cooling happens also. Blaming most of it on humans just living is silly because that sort of blame begs for elimination of the cause, which means genocide.

Personally, I'm hoping for a White Christmas this year with a big snowfall that stays around for a long time. heh
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (39) Aug 15, 2012
Lurker, are you ready to go out and eliminate a few hundred people for your new belief? Don't believe everything you read, especially when big money and power are involved.
Lurker2358
3.2 / 5 (19) Aug 15, 2012
Uh...I am by no means in favor of any such thing as genocide...

I just want some sort of clean energy solution.

Making wind and solar farms isn't genocide.

Asking some insane Africans and middle-easterners to quit having 8 children per woman isn't genocide either. It's intelligent. If anything, their insanity is a genocide against everyone else.
SatanLover
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2012
too late genocides are already at full speed ahead.
Lurker2358
3.2 / 5 (20) Aug 15, 2012
Lurker, are you ready to go out and eliminate a few hundred people for your new belief? Don't believe everything you read, especially when big money and power are involved.


You're a damn moron.

I never, NEVER would hurt anyone, except in self defense or in defense of another.

You're the idiot who first used the term "Genocide," and I NEVER said nor implied that I was in any way for harming other people.

You made a logical fallacy of concluding that mass murder/genocide was the only way to reduce pollution.

You're the one who is a damn liar.

I never said any such thing, nor would I.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 15, 2012
it's been a long dream of mine to melt the greenland ice sheet in order to help warm the entire northern hemisphere. there is no question that melting the entire ice-sheet would take time, but slowly much more heat absorbing land surface would exposed to the sun, allowing for far more absorbtion and re-radiation of the heat ( as well as convection to the northern hemisphere. if canada and northern europe and russia were hotter---muhc more land could be farmed and inhabited.

it would be the single biggest factor opening up huge opportunities for the countries that dominate the northern hemisphere. from a strategic perspective the u.s. and canada would benefit greatly at the potential expense of other countries not in the northern hemisphere---all things equal.

the best way that i've thought to rapidly eliminate the ice sheet from greenland is to just dump massive quantities of dust and dirt all over the reflective sheet. and to also bury nukes into the sheet and blow open the cracks
Lurker2358
3.2 / 5 (20) Aug 15, 2012
Jeddy, you're an idiot.

Global warming almost certainly isn't going to help crops in the U.S.

The Mississippi is nearly dried up this year, you retard, because the ice sheets and snow packs melted so early this year.

If that becomes the normal, there will be virtually no water for irrigation, the river fish will all go extinct, and the shipping of goods up and down the river will be impossible. The damage to the U.S. economy will be in the trillions per year, and the damage to world food supplies will be also very large.

Are you really that freaking ignorant, or are you just trolling?
thermodynamics
3.6 / 5 (17) Aug 15, 2012
obama_socks says: "Well, I'm still a skeptic, not a denialist)."... "Blaming most of it on humans just living is silly because that sort of blame begs for elimination of the cause, which means genocide."

So, let me get this straight. You are not a denialist but you see blaming warming on humans as "silly" with no reason other than the solution (in your pea brain) being genocide. You might be right. You might be one step beyond a denialist (which I hadn't considered) and you are really a psychopath who leaps to genocide. Please find another forum that appreciates brutal psychopathic perspectives. I really don't.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (30) Aug 15, 2012
Lurker, are you ready to go out and eliminate a few hundred people for your new belief? Don't believe everything you read, especially when big money and power are involved.


You're a damn moron.

I never, NEVER would hurt anyone, except in self defense or in defense of another.

You're the idiot who first used the term "Genocide," and I NEVER said nor implied that I was in any way for harming other people.

You made a logical fallacy of concluding that mass murder/genocide was the only way to reduce pollution.

You're the one who is a damn liar.

I never said any such thing, nor would I.
- Lurker

Just testing you. I knew it would be against your principles as a Christian.
There are others who do believe that genocide is one of the ways to get rid of so many people so that the remainder have more for themselves and less pollution created. That's what AGW is...anthropomorphic global warming also means anthropomorphic generated warming.
So what do you intend to do?
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 15, 2012
I've already been doing my part to help resolve this "crisis", but with 7 billion people living on this planet and many of them uncooperative including uncooperative governments, I'm also skeptical of a positive response to the problem. And as for telling people not to have more children...I sure wouldn't want to be the one to tell them. heh
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (28) Aug 15, 2012
Jeddy, you're an idiot.

Global warming almost certainly isn't going to help crops in the U.S.

The Mississippi is nearly dried up this year, you retard, because the ice sheets and snow packs melted so early this year.

If that becomes the normal, there will be virtually no water for irrigation, the river fish will all go extinct, and the shipping of goods up and down the river will be impossible. The damage to the U.S. economy will be in the trillions per year, and the damage to world food supplies will be also very large.

Are you really that freaking ignorant, or are you just trolling?
- Lurker

Well there you have it. Mass starvation is the answer to AGW. No water - no crops- no food - no excess people. Vendicar could probably endorse even that.

Ooopsa...they're calling me back to the station...later guys.
mrtea
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2012

Well there you have it. Mass starvation is the answer to AGW.


Mass starvation is the consequence of AGW, don't you mean?
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 15, 2012
@Swiftie,
being smart and/or well-educated doesn't correlate with how good or bad they are at the job
Unless you consider Congress' collective intelligence as a factor in a DEMOCRACY (vs. DICTATORSHIP.)
Even conservatives mainly agree that Bill Clinton did a good job, but was he especially bright?
Does being a Rhodes Scholar count?
Jimmy Carter was exceptionally bright, but his performance is seen as an embarassment to liberals.
Was he wrong about any of his policies?
Reagan didn't have any special qualifications, but the Berlin Wall is gone, and Germany is a country again.
I'm so tired of ideologues like you giving Reagan all the credit for Gorbachev's well-intentioned self-immolation...
Besides, G.W. hasn't been President for a few years now.
That doesn't keep him from being a great example of least outwardly projected (if not actual) idiocy (I happen to believe he's far from an idiot: his acts of "idiocy" were in fact intentional and malicious.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (13) Aug 15, 2012
@ lengould100:

It is too late to panic - welcome to our future. Hansen just released a paper that broke the taboo, there are so many 3 - 5 sigma climate extreme events and trending on the hot side so we can now attribute them to AGW. This sounds like one of them: "shattered the seasonal record".

@ obama_socks:

AGW is the current accepted climate regime by climate scientists (look it up if you must), so don't give us that "no denialist" crap. Skeptic organizations are careful with that they only accept science (look it up if you must), since science is intrinsically skeptic and they are the experts, so don't give us the "a skeptic" crap either.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it likely is a duck.

Blaming AGW on overpopulation is a mistake, and all assessments shows that we can still fix it for little investment (look it up if you must). Doing nothing will cost the most, due to these types of extreme events and the overall change.
mrtea
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2012

And they wonder why they are called Tards.


I wonder why you haven't been banned.
Jitterbewegung
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2012
What a pretty lake. The fluffy snow melts in the summer and forms a lake and a stream and then the lake and the stream freeze in the winter to form ice and part of the glacier. Have I got the cycle right?
RobPaulG
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2012
Oh my. Ice melts during the summer. The sky truly is falling!
rubberman
3 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2012
Oh my. Ice melts during the summer. The sky truly is falling!


And they wonder why they are called Tards.


I wonder why you haven't been banned.


Clearly due to the accuracy of the assessment.
Lurker2358
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2012
Oh my. Ice melts during the summer. The sky truly is falling!


There is a NET ANNUAL LOSS of ice in Greenland which had grown to at least 380 cubic kilometers by 2008. Based on the trend, it should be at least 460 cubic kilometers net loss for this year.

When the numbers were small, it was hard to tell whether the net melting rate is following a "double every 5 to 10 years" trend, or whether the net melting rate is increasing by 20 cubic kilometers every year, but whatever the case, the average net annual loss has grown from barely perceptible 20 years ago, to around 400 cubic kilometers per year now.

So no, much of the melted ice does NOT refreeze during the following winter.

Further, when ice at 1000m elevation melts and runs into the sea, the release of potential energy is converted to heat by friction, which is actually enough to warm itself by another 4.7C by the time all the potential and kinetic energy is dissipated through friction.

No re-freezing buddy.
geokstr
2.3 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2012

And they wonder why they are called Tards.


I wonder why you haven't been banned.


I've been trying, reporting every comment, many, many hundreds over the last couple years, that has "-tard" in it, or his comments about mass execution of any group that disagrees with his philosophy, or calling other commenters mentally diseased or defective, pathological liars and worse.

I've also written to the owners of this blog (via "Contact/FAQ" link at bottom) on a number of occasions.

So far the only response has been for them to delete two of my comments, both one sentence long, both of which were quite innocuous and neither of which insulted anybody, for "pointless or excessive verbiage".

I would advise others to report him as well, and all his insulting comments. Perhaps they need to be inundated with complaints before they'll act. But if they don't the only conclusion will be that the moderators agree with him and find his vile, vicious style perfectly acceptable.
geokstr
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2012
Oh my. Ice melts during the summer. The sky truly is falling!


And they wonder why they are called Tards.


And you and Howhot should go away after VD. You're both picking up very bad habits from him. Civility for thee, but not for leftists, apparently.

I wonder why you haven't been banned.


Clearly due to the accuracy of the assessment.


And you and Howhot and Caliban should either get civil or go away next. You're all picking up bad habits from VD. Civility is apparently for others, not for leftists, eh?
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2012
I have explained this many times. Scientific debate will never garner hostility when done in earnest. When the debate leaves the realm of logic, civility follows it out the door. You find Ad hoc remarks and name calling offensive and then refer to people as "leftists" based on a single point of view...interesting.
If you lie or cherry pick info. in a debate, the message this sends to the other person in the debate is that you believe they are stupid, you may as well just say that instead.
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2012
Geokstr:

I think Vendi owns the site or is a close buddy to whoever owns the site.

They also ban or delete nearly ANY comment on religion or alternative theories, and label it "pointless verbiage" even if you have solid proof or at least circumstantial evidence.

The site is heavily leaning towards ultra-liberal population reduction policies, which strongly agrees with Vendi's approach to solving everything.

I take a moderate view on the situation, and would just like to see some common sense somehow instilled in Africans and Middle-Easterners.

Got 50 million people living in the middle of a desert, with no real water management, and they wonder why they starve every time there's a drought...
djr
5 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2012
"The site is heavily leaning towards ultra-liberal population reduction policies"

I would probably be considered a liberal. I do find thinkers on the left - generally more in keeping with my views than most on the right. I don't know anyone - and have not read any work that promotes population reduction. Obviously as we are stressing the resources of the planet - the more of us there are - the more likely we are to increase that stress. This does not lead to calls for some program to reduce population. I think everyone agrees it will be a good day when population stabilizes. Can you give some more support to your suggestion that liberals are espousing population control policies?
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (25) Aug 16, 2012
Suggested reading - http://phys.org/n...sun.html
In addition to excessive use of fossil fuels per person, there may also be natural causes for Global Warming coming out of old Sol that is hitting and interacting with Earth, possibly contributing to the warming. If this is the case, then it could be much more than just photons hitting the ice sheets and melting them. That isn't really my department, but I will try to find the time to stay up on it.

@Lurker...funny that you would say that Vendi might be an (co)owner of this infernal Phys.org. I have been mulling the idea that TheGhostofOtto1923 (OttoBlotto) might be a Phys.org administrator's "crazy uncle". He and his many sock puppets have been terrorizing commenters for years now.
In any case, BOTH are allowed to say anything uncivil and untrue that they darn please, with no repercussions. I've come to understand that there is no punishment meted out in this website to the guily offender.
lengould100
5 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2012
I'm quite sick of the constant random insults from apparently right-wing commentators too, simply because I can actually read and understand the physics backing up the AGW worries. I've never voted anything but conservative in my (long) life, but lately refuse to support this "new-wave" right-wing extremist stupidity which has swept all the uneducated and uneducatable followers under the wing of a few mouthy demagogues who apparently coundn't care less about anything but retaining whatever power they may have acquired. And it really grates to have them call me commie or etc., sometimes to the point where it is difficult to withhold insults.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (26) Aug 16, 2012
I have explained this many times. Scientific debate will never garner hostility when done in earnest. When the debate leaves the realm of logic, civility follows it out the door. You find Ad hoc remarks and name calling offensive and then refer to people as "leftists" based on a single point of view...interesting.
If you lie or cherry pick info. in a debate, the message this sends to the other person in the debate is that you believe they are stupid, you may as well just say that instead.
- rubberman -

Your false premise that civility naturally leaves the scientific debate once an idea that may be deemed as illogical is introduced in a comment, is ignorant. I don't mean that YOU are necessarily ignorant, just that your premise that civility must be abandoned and a no-holds-barred atmosphere is inherent as a solution to such a debate, is ignorant. You also show a great intolerance for ideas not in lockstep with your own. Your own intolerance is intolerable to others. -contd-
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 16, 2012
-contd-
The old adage that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar is true even in a discussion. It's important to hear all sides to a debate and then give the important reasons for condoning or condemning an idea. But nasty words and lies about someone's background, or whatever, only leads to resentment and a belief that you are too ignorant to understand their idea.
You cannot change anyone's views on issues with a crap attitude toward them. If YOUR reasoning is worth considering, then they will come over to your side. If not, then you must understand that their idea just might be correct, even if illogic to you. In the long run, what does it matter? This is the internet, not a voting booth or a government body.
I have been commenting on this site for 8 years on science threads that are highly technical. I also comment on other science websites for the same reason and no one forgets their good manners. Only since I made this one sock that I've been stalked by a nutjob.
GSwift7
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2012
The Mississippi is nearly dried up this year, you retard, because the ice sheets and snow packs melted so early this year.

If that becomes the normal, there will be virtually no water for irrigation


I'm not arguing with how serious our problems with water are right now globally, but the central US isn't really a good example. Heck, just last year the snow pack was the thickest it has been in years, and the entire river system was in flood. According to the USGS, central US is experiencing the best weather conditions it has ever had (as far as we can determine). The megadroughts suspected of killing off many Native American tribal nations hundreds of years ago were far worse than anything in the last 100 years. India and Central Africa would have been a better example to make your point I think. Here in the US, consumption of water is the biggest issue, rather than rainfall. Besides, 2/3 of the US is fine for rainfall this year.
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2012
Mr presidents socks, I didn't say when logic left scientific debate, I said "Scientific debate will never garner hostility when done in earnest. When the debate leaves the realm of logic, civility follows it out the door."
The first sentence is true of most posters here, even Vendi. The second is not a premise, it is a daily code of conduct for me. I don't accept bullshit, no matter how civily it is presented to me because the plain truth is that it is still bullshit. I used to politely debate issues on this site and as I stated I still will until the BS line is crossed. Unfortunately for me I am mostly interested in the space/earth/green tech, all of which have very vocal sides who comment here. Not to mention alot of set in stone beliefs (my own included, and none of which I arrived at lightly or frivolously) regarding the debate topics. "Good manners" are an illusion created by words, intent speaks for itself, ideas and beliefs speak for themselves...Ted Bundy had great manners.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (23) Aug 16, 2012
Well, I'm still a skeptic, not a denialist). Everyone that you're calling a denialist is really a skeptic.
Youre still a liar thats for sure. The multisickpuppet pirouette/ritchieguy/russkiye/pussy/obie is now pretending to work for NASA. Why? For entertainment purposes??
And as for telling people not to have more children...I sure wouldn't want to be the one to tell them. heh
Right. Pussy had 6 'miscarriages' I suppose because she couldnt refrain from having saucy sex up against her stove while cooking dinner. And also posting gay porn links here on physorg which got her banned. Again.

What sickness.
I have been commenting on this site for 8 years on science threads that are highly technical.
So, p/r/r/p/o why does a respectable NASA person need a new sockpuppet? A respectable NASA person would have no compunctions about sharing it with the community here. Unless of course
I have been commenting on this site for 8 years
-you are just a pathological liar.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2012
Hey PinkElephant, haven't seen you around in a while. How's it going?

A rhodes scholar, sure, but "I didn't inhale" and "i did not have sex with that woman" weren't exactly the brightest moments in the history of public speaking. Even highly educated people can do enough stupid things to earn them a sign.

As for Carter, if you don't know about his mistakes, then you need to read up a little. Try starting with stagflation, though there are many reasons why profs of poli-sci rate Carter so low as a President. Granted, that's subjective, and someone is always willing to disagree with the mainstream.

On Reagan, I don't give him much personal credit. I believe he was surrounded by a lot of tallented people. I agree with you, I should have used a better example of something he did personally though.

As for GW, don't get me started. I'm not a fan either. Stupid wars, over-spending, job exports, no child left behind, and the list goes on. Oh don't forget, public speaking... FAIL.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 16, 2012
...weren't exactly the brightest moments in the history of public speaking.
Billy Bob was able to say these things with a straight face. A very rare and essential Talent for Leaders to possess.

Such talented Leaders can conceive Charters which state:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

-enabling 'Christian Science (?) Monitor' writers with similar talents to conclude that:

"Under the strict wording of the Charter, neither Israel nor the United States would have a legal right to preemptively launch a military strike on Iran"

-And expect us to think that we should wait until Iranian nukes fall on Tel Aviv and Washington DC before we act. Sadly, many will actually fall for this stuff, attesting to the extreme Value of this particular Talent.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (21) Aug 16, 2012
"Mr presidents socks, I didn't say when logic left scientific debate, I said "Scientific debate will never garner hostility when done in earnest. When the debate leaves the realm of logic, civility follows it out the door."
- rubberman -

I would hope that scientific debate is always done in earnest, as it is not a joking matter nor should it be trivialized by any side.
But what may seem illogical to you, may just be thinking "out-of-the-box" and inspired as innovative possibilities, just as "dark matter" and "dark energy" were once considered as kook fringe, illogical and impossible.
We've come a long way in the last ~500 years, but we still have a very long way to go. I respect almost everyone's point of view (except for obvious nutjobs like Vendicar and OttoBlotto) and if I have enough time off from my job, I will investigate all scientific possibilities as presented. I'm not prejudiced.
kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2012
Lurker, are you ready to go out and eliminate a few hundred people for your new belief?
Abortion is the solution, when contraception fails. Almost all the people alive now will be dead within a century. The planet should thrive is reproduction is cut back 75% overall.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (24) Aug 16, 2012
Lurker, are you ready to go out and eliminate a few hundred people for your new belief?
Abortion is the solution, when contraception fails. Almost all the people alive now will be dead within a century. The planet should thrive is reproduction is cut back 75% overall.
- koch -

I suggest that you think through what you've just said, k
Are you suggesting that each pregnancy should be aborted throughout the next hundred years? If not, then who gets to carry their baby to term and who doesn't? In another century, all those who were born this year and everyone older will likely be dead. That leaves zero population growth from now until 2112. Problem is...well, you figure it out. :(
obama_socks
1 / 5 (21) Aug 16, 2012
GSwift7 said:
A rhodes scholar, sure, but "I didn't inhale" and "i did not have sex with that woman" weren't exactly the brightest moments in the history of public speaking. Even highly educated people can do enough stupid things to earn them a sign.


- Ronald Reagan said: "Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards. If you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book."

As for Carter, if you don't know about his mistakes, then you need to read up a little. Try starting with stagflation, though there are many reasons why profs of poli-sci rate Carter so low as a President. Granted, that's subjective, and someone is always willing to disagree with the mainstream.


- Ron Reagan said: "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."
obama_socks
1 / 5 (19) Aug 17, 2012
_contd-
On Reagan, I don't give him much personal credit. I believe he was surrounded by a lot of tallented people. I agree with you, I should have used a better example of something he did personally though.


- R,Reagan said: "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." -during a 1984 presidential debate with Walter Mondale.

As for GW, don't get me started. I'm not a fan either. Stupid wars, over-spending, job exports, no child left behind, and the list goes on. Oh don't forget, public speaking... FAIL.


- Ron Reagan said: "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2012
Probably because contrary to the assertion of the Tard, there were no dairy farms on Greenland 300 years ago.

"I wonder why you haven't been banned." - MrTea

Honest men do not tolerate liars. Why do you?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2012
Obama Socks seems to think that there will be no deaths from here to 2112 and hence ZPG requires zero births.

Where does he get such idiocy, and basic innumeracy?

"Are you suggesting that each pregnancy should be aborted throughout the next hundred years?... That leaves zero population growth from now until 2112." - Obama Socks

In fact, weak negative population growth will be had with a two children per family approach to fertility. Strong negative population growth can be had with a one child per family approach.

Illiteracy, anti-logic and innumeracy are epidemic problems in the American Conservative mind.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
GNotSoSwift dishonestly misquotes Clinton.

""i did not have sex with that woman" weren't exactly the brightest moments in the history of public speaking." - GSwift

What Clinton really said, was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

And by the definition of "sexual relations" - coitus - he didn't.

I commend Clinton for telling the truth on the matter while at the same time trying to protect his private personal life from public exposure by Corrupt, muck raking Republicans.

obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (26) Aug 17, 2012
@Vendicar
Lexical semantics notwithstanding, your seeming insistence on formalism of the term "sexual relations" is correct in the academic sense. Those 2 words were in his statement. But, in everyday usage, the more informal term "sex" is also appropriate. In either case, William Jefferson Clinton and Monica Lewinsky may not have had coitus, but they did indulge in preliminary sexual contact known as "foreplay", which may or may not have led to coitus eventually. Republicans had nothing to do with Lewinsky going public with what transpired between her and the, (ahem) President of the time. To be fair, there are a few corrupt Republicans who are corrupt only because of their lack of Conservative values. Fortunately. there are only a few of them and the rest are fine with regard to honesty and integrity.
As to what kochevnik said and my reply, I did not say there would be no deaths within the hundred years' time period. Kindly read both comments again. -contd-
obama_socks
1 / 5 (25) Aug 17, 2012
-contd
Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births. That, along with everyone who is alive at this time eventually dying within that hundred year period. Death of world population will hasten the recovery of natural resources and lessening of the CO2 problem. However, if even two children are born, that cancels out ZPG. And if more babies are live births and allowed to become adults, eventually we will be back to the same situation we have now...within a few hundred years.
If ZPG is not to be maintained, then who is to decide which couples are allowed to have children? It would naturally fall to the remaining leaders of each country to make that decision. What would be the parameters for making choices of who will be the lucky parents to be, and what attributes should they have to ensure the best possible results? Eugenics would likely be a good path for improvement of the human race. Yes?
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2012
"Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births."

Interesting, maybe you are sweet sorgum/pussy/russian pastry/whatever. Zero population growth means that if the population of a country is 100 million people, it stays there because births and immigration cancel out death. No babies for a hundred years would be classified as rapid, massive population DECLINE.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2012
GNotSoSwift dishonestly misquotes Clinton.

""i did not have sex with that woman" weren't exactly the brightest moments in the history of public speaking." - GSwift

What Clinton really said, was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

And by the definition of "sexual relations" - coitus - he didn't.


Dude, get real. You are insane if you think that post makes any sense at all.

Besides, I was saying that I thought Clinton did a good job. My point was that even if you found the smartest, most educated, most honest, and most experienced person in history, they still may or may not make a good President. Personally, I don't think it's possible to name a single President who didn't have major flaws and/or do stupid things. They are just people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (21) Aug 17, 2012
"Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births."

Interesting, maybe you are sweet sorgum/pussy/russian pastry/whatever. Zero population growth means that if the population of a country is 100 million people, it stays there because births and immigration cancel out death. No babies for a hundred years would be classified as rapid, massive population DECLINE.
I suppose there ARE people who would enjoy pretending to be as stupid as they possibly could, the idea being that they were tricking others by convincing them they were sincere. I imagine it would be very uncomfortable actually meeting one. Do you think a lot of the people at NASA are this stupid?

Perhaps by 'the station' she meant the sunoco where she pumps gas? I don't know-
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (20) Aug 17, 2012
I suppose there ARE people who would enjoy pretending to be as stupid as they possibly could, the idea being that they were tricking others by convincing them they were sincere.
I suppose this could be akin to Clinton claiming with a straight face that he didn't have sex, or that we should actually wait to be nuked before we took action, but I suspect that pussy really DOES think that extinction is the equivalent of zero growth.

There is such tenacity and consistency across all the various caricatures that I have little doubt we are dealing with an imbecile in it's purest form. One who sincerely believes that Spain lies on the equator or that an RN would confidently proclaim that bloodletting is an effective treatment for leukemia.

Or that the people here would naturally forget these foibles from one caricature to the next. Because, well, pussy does doesn't she? And so everybody must.

This is the sort of consistency I am referring to.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
Not only was Monica Lewinsky forced by Filthy, Corrupt, Republicans to testify to a grand jury with regard to her sex life, so was her mother.

Lewinsky's mother forced to testify.

"Monica Lewinsky's mother was forced to testify yesterday before a federal grand jury investigating the White House sex-and-lies scandal after her attorney failed to quash a subpoena from independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr." - Washington Times

"Republicans had nothing to do with Lewinsky going public with what transpired between her and the, (ahem) President of the time." - Obama Socks
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
Wrongo El massive Dodo.

You need to get back on that cabbage truck boy. Your relatives are scheduled to become coleslaw.

"Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births." - Obama Socks
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
You misquote Clinton and then claim that the correction doesn't make any sense.

"You are insane if you think that post makes any sense at all." - GNotSoSwift

Have you been huffing gasoline?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2012


And you and Howhot and Caliban should either get civil or go away next. You're all picking up bad habits from VD. Civility is apparently for others, not for leftists, eh?


That's quite enough from you, Gisele.

I marvel at the irony inherent in a poisonous little toad such as yourself condescending to instruct others --and me-- in deportment.

Perhaps the reason why the editors so frequently remove your comments and ignore your reports of others is due the fact that you rarely have anything cogent, to the point, or even germaine to say about any of the articles.

Instead, you prefer to skulk around like a half-starved dog, phantom downranking others, and only occasionally thinking that you see anything that might be weak enough to venture one of your hit-and-run, non-substantive, whining "ripostes", as you envision your dribbling, sourmouthed rejoinders.

Verily thou art the weakest of the weak.

A,M.F!

Caliban

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (20) Aug 17, 2012
Your false premise that civility naturally leaves the scientific debate once an idea that may be deemed as illogical is introduced in a comment, is ignorant.
It is wholly understandable when you civilly introduce putting microphones on Martian rovers to listen in on glass-headed Martian conversations. With a straight face just like clinton. Remember that one? Civility bolted for the railing on that one.

Clinton can get away with outrageous nonsense. You cannot. Say how many cameras does the NASA station worker think there are on Curiosity? One? Aw that's right you already looked that one up.

Try another one you carking dimwit. I've seen people like you standing on street corners with walkie talkies, trying to look important.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2012
Geokstr:

I think Vendi owns the site or is a close buddy to whoever owns the site.


Highly unlikely, yet still possible

They also ban or delete nearly ANY comment on religion or alternative...label it "pointless verbiage" even if you have solid proof or at least circumstantial evidence.


That is so hyperbolic a claim that it might just as well be called a lie.

The site is heavily leaning towards ultra-liberal population reduction policies, which strongly agrees with Vendi's approach to solving everything.


Commenters, sure. The site, PHYSorg, itself? Hardly

I take a moderate view on the situation, and would just like to see some common sense somehow instilled in Africans and Middle-Easterners.


Very broadminded of you.

Got 50 million people living in the middle of a desert, with no real water management, and they wonder why they starve every time there's a drought...


This plainly shows your ignorance of the facts.

Come to the light, lurker..
obama_socks
1 / 5 (25) Aug 17, 2012
"Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births."

Interesting, maybe you are sweet sorgum/pussy/russian pastry/whatever. Zero population growth means that if the population of a country is 100 million people, it stays there because births and immigration cancel out death. No babies for a hundred years would be classified as rapid, massive population DECLINE.

- used rubbers man

I see that you are kissing OttoBlotto's ass in his desperate attempt to pin his sock puppets on me. I've heard of sweet sorghum that is eaten in African countries. As far as pussy, I get plenty of pussy and I don't have to pay for it like you probably do. I've only eaten German pastries and there's no Russian bakeries around here.

Rapid massive population DECLINE is what kochevnik and I were referring to, dummy. Don't you know how to read?
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (25) Aug 17, 2012
K mentioned a 75% drop in reproduction. Here is what he said on page 2:

quote kochevnik 23 hours ago Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3) 'Lurker, are you ready to go out and eliminate a few hundred people for your new belief?'
"Abortion is the solution, when contraception fails. Almost all the people alive now will be dead within a century. The planet should thrive if reproduction is cut back 75% overall."

Then Vendicar thought I had said that no deaths would occur within 100 years, something which he had misinterpreted somehow.
My point for a discussion with kochevnik is who will get to decide who will be allowed to have children and who will not. Even at 75% reduction, it's unlikely that in a free society, people who want children will gladly accept a proviso of only one or two children per couple. It's a condition unheard of in western countries that I'm aware of.
K is correct that nobody alive now will still be alive in 2112, or very few. A 75% drop would help, but 50% would be even better.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (26) Aug 18, 2012
Wrongo El massive Dodo.

You need to get back on that cabbage truck boy. Your relatives are scheduled to become coleslaw.

"Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births." - Obama Socks
- Vendicarbon_tetrachloride aka CCl4

Damn...is that all you've got? And I was so worried that you would have me hung, drawn and quartered and left out in the climate heeheehee, as CrazyOtto would say.

OttoBlotto would have been banned many times over just because he's so weird and says strange things. But I suppose Vendi and Blotto are best buddies, so the raving lunatic gets a pass.
Tsk Tsk Tsk, CCl4...what crazy people you do hang out with, but it is fun to watch.
:D

Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2012
Blaming most of it on humans just living is silly because that sort of blame begs for elimination of the cause, which means genocide.

Set aside whether humans contribute to global warming and examine your argument. You say:
a) humans don't contribute to warming because
b) if they did, the solution would be to eliminate the cause which
c) is people just living so
d) elimination of the cause means genocide
e) you don't bother stating that you disapprove of genocide. No objection on that one.

c) is debatable, but something else is just plain wrong. Your argument can be further compressed to:
"This proposition is false because I don't like its consequences".

Value judgements of consequences have absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsehood of a statement. I dislike that humans are capable of genocide, but my dislike doesn't make them incapable. To believe that dislike of consequences proves a proposition wrong is motivated cognition, less technically wishful thinking.
Sigh
5 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2012
And as for telling people not to have more children...I sure wouldn't want to be the one to tell them. heh

Watch Hans Rosling's TED talk on the topic of "no more boring data". The data he presents are on population growth. He mentions that the country that had the greatest success in reducing its birth rate is not China with its coercive policy, but Iran, with a public information campaign. Basically telling people to have fewer children.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (22) Aug 18, 2012
discussion with kochevnik is who will get to decide who will be allowed to have children and who will not. Even at 75% reduction, it's unlikely that in a free society, people who want children
I'm sorry are you REALLY trying to talk your way out of this?
"Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births."
-That's as ignorant as saying it in the first place. You don't see that? Any NASA parking attendant would see that you dimwit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 18, 2012
He mentions that the country that had the greatest success in reducing its birth rate is not China with its coercive policy, but Iran, with a public information campaign
'There is a Time to embrace and a Time to refrain'.

"Tehran- Procreation policy in the Islamic Republic is clearly determined by political need rather than religious doctrine. When Ayatollah Khomeini wanted a vast Iranian army he urged the population to make babies. Fearing a population explosion in the 1990's Tehran changed tack and offered free contraceptive services, and according to Ynet issued "religious edicts in favor of vasectomies."
Now, as Iran faces the prospect of an ageing population [and a BIG war] requiring support from the young, family planning funding has been cut from this year's budget and the Ayatollah is backing a baby making boom."
http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/330123

-The Nazis gave out little blue 'mothers crosses' - Xian crosses with swastikas in the middle - for each baby.
BLAST OF SHIT IN THE FACE
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 18, 2012
Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births. That, along with everyone who is alive at this time eventually dying within that hundred year period... However, if even two children are born, that cancels out ZPG. And if more babies are live births and allowed to become adults, eventually we will be back to the same situation we have now...within a few hundred years.

Wow, you're a retard. It's clear you have no idea what the definition of "population growth" is.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2012
Isn't exposing your idiocy and innumeracy enough for one post?

"Damn...is that all you've got?" - Obama Socks

It doesn't take two posts to show that you don't know what exponential growth is or that you foolishly claimed that zero population growth requires zero births.

GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
LOL

Notice anything funny when you compare the story above to the original press release? (found here at NASA's web page:)

http://www.nasa.g...elt.html

Here's the final paragraph from the NASA press release:

"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."


So, "unprecedented" means that it happens every couple hundred years? I looked up "unprecedented" and I see that the people at dictionary.com need to fix their definition.

I wonder why stories here seem to ALWAYS leave out the parts like the one I quoted?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2012
LOL

Notice anything funny when you compare the story above to the original press release? (found here at NASA's web page:)

http://www.nasa.g...elt.html

Here's the final paragraph from the NASA press release:

"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."


Uncle swifty,

That article refers to the "one-off" melting event, that was expected to refreeze in a matter of a couple days, and was already reported on here.

What they are calling unprecedented in this article is the duration and extent of the melting that has taken place SUBSEQUENT to the "150 year" event.

Are you "LOL"-ing now?