Meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet releasing faster

January 4, 2016
Climate change altering Greenland ice sheet & accelerating sea level rise, says York University prof
Rivers of meltwater forming on the Greenland ice sheet and flowing toward the sea. Credit: Dirk van As, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), Copenhagen, Denmark.

The firn layers of the Greenland ice sheet might store less meltwater than previously assumed. Researchers from the USA, Denmark and the University of Zurich fear that this could lead to increased release of the meltwater into the oceans.

The near-surface layers of the Greenland are made up of snow that is gradually being converted into glacier ice. In Greenland this firn is up to 80 m thick. As researchers from Denmark, the USA and the University of Zurich have demonstrated, the current atmospheric warming is changing this firn layer such that resulting meltwater is being released faster than previously anticipated.

"Basically our research shows that the firn reacts fast to a changing climate. Its ability to limit mass loss of the ice sheet by retaining meltwater could be smaller than previously assumed", sums up Horst Machguth, lead author of the study by the University of Zurich.

The researchers travelled to Greenland to investigate the impact of recent atmospheric warming on the structure of near-surface snow and ice layers, called firn. Over the course of three expeditions on the ice sheet, the researchers traversed several hundred kilometres to map the structure of the firn layers with a radar unit and by drilling regularly-spaced firn cores.

Firn layer acts sponge-like

Earlier research has shown that the firn layer acts similar to a sponge. It stores meltwater percolating down into the firn from the surface in what are referred to as 'ice lenses'. "It is unknown how the firn reacted to the recent very warm summer in Greenland. Our research aims to clarify whether the firn was indeed capable of retaining the meltwater, or whether the sponge has been overwhelmed."

The scientists drilled numerous 20 metre-deep cores to sample the firn, also targeting sites where similar cores had been drilled 15 to 20 years ago. At many locations, a comparison of the new and old cores revealed substantially more ice lenses than in the past and that the firn stored the meltwater similar to a sponge. But this was not the case everywhere. Cores drilled at lower elevations indicated that the exceptional amounts of meltwater formed a surprisingly massive ice layer directly below the ice sheet surface.

Meltwater no longer percolating

"It appears that the intensive and repeated entry of meltwater formed numerous ice lenses, which ultimately hindered percolation of further meltwater", says Dirk van As, a co-author of the study from the Geological Survey in Denmark and Greenland. As a result, the many small lenses grew to form an ice layer of several meters in thickness that now acts as a lid on top of otherwise sponge-like firn. Radar measurements identified that this layer was continuous over dozens of kilometers. New meltwater, hitting that lid of ice was unable to percolate into the firn and remained at the surface. Satellite imagery shows that the water prevented from percolating collected at the surface, where it formed rivers that flow towards the margin of the ice sheet.

"In contrast to storing in porous firn, this mechanism increases runoff from the ice sheet", explains Mike MacFerrin, second-author of the study and a researcher at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "This process has not previously been observed in Greenland. The total extent of this ice lid capping the ice sheet firn remains unknown. For this reason, the amount of additional ice sheet runoff associated with this newly observed process cannot yet be quantified." However, similar changes in firn structure have already been observed in the Canadian Arctic, which leads to the conclusion that this phenomenon could be widespread.

Explore further: Giant channels discovered beneath Antarctic ice shelf

More information: Greenland meltwater storage in firn limited by near-surface ice formation, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2899

Related Stories

Giant channels discovered beneath Antarctic ice shelf

October 6, 2013

Scientists have discovered huge ice channels beneath a floating ice shelf in Antarctica. At 250 metres high, the channels are almost as tall as the Eiffel tower and stretch hundreds of kilometres along the ice shelf. The ...

Greenland ice stores liquid water year-round

December 22, 2013

Researchers at the University of Utah have discovered a new aquifer in the Greenland Ice Sheet that holds liquid water all year long in the otherwise perpetually frozen winter landscape. The aquifer is extensive, covering ...

Recommended for you

What did Earth's ancient magnetic field look like?

June 24, 2016

New work from Carnegie's Peter Driscoll suggests Earth's ancient magnetic field was significantly different than the present day field, originating from several poles rather than the familiar two. It is published in Geophysical ...

Global coral bleaching event expected to last through 2016

June 21, 2016

After the most powerful El Nino on record heated the world's oceans to never-before-seen levels, huge swaths of once vibrant coral reefs that were teeming with life are now stark white ghost towns disintegrating into the ...

Scientists moot 'green fracking' technique

June 21, 2016

Adding CO2 instead of water to the cocktail used in fracking, could boost oil and gas extraction and help fight global warming at the same time, scientists said Tuesday.

Siberian larch forests are still linked to the ice age

June 24, 2016

Bremerhaven/Germany, 24 June 2016. The Siberian permafrost regions include those areas of the Earth, which heat up very quickly in the course of climate change. Nevertheless, biologists are currently observing only a minimal ...

50 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
Since the Deniers will argue there has been no temperature change, how is this happening?
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2016
the Deniers will argue there has been no temperature change


I've never seen anyone argue that the climate doesn't change, only that the change is driven by many factors.

I'll bet there is a bunch of placer gold to pick up once the ice gets out the way.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
I've never seen anyone argue that the climate doesn't change,

You're right, the comment section never has people denying that climate is changi--

http://phys.org/n...ear.html

Well, at least people in Congress are more in tune with realit--

https://www.washi...for-all/

Huh...

only that the change is driven by many factors.

Yes, just as cancer is driven by many factors, which is why it's ok to smoke like a chimney, right?
I'll bet there is a bunch of placer gold to pick up once the ice gets out the way.

Food webs will likely collapse, heat waves will make annually summer unbearable in many places, much biodiversity will be lost, and people wage war and die of thirst from water shortages, but at least you'll be rich!
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016
Food webs will likely collapse, heat waves will make annually summer unbearable in many places, much biodiversity will be lost, and people wage war and die of thirst from water shortages, but at least you'll be rich!


It would be interesting to see psychological profilees of typical alarmists vs. skeptics in this issue. Almost without exception, alarmists see change as something catastrophically fearful while skeptics tend to see change more pragmatically. Evidence based on Earth's history clearly indicate the planet and its flora and fauna have the capacity to change, often quite quickly, to deal with new conditions. The fear-driven pessimism from alarmists seems based only on studies. I'll personally trust history and present-day reality over a human's ability to predict the future any day.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
Gosh, Jeff, nice theory, but wishful thinking, I think.

I got my opinion from earning a Master of Science in the field, 1979-82. How did you get yours?
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
Gosh, Jeff, nice theory, but wishful thinking, I think


Perhaps you and your MS would like to explain how the Earth has survived and life has flourished on an ever-changing planet without our help for billions of years? Have you wondered what our heat energy input calculations and charts would have looked like at the end of the Ice Age? They'd have been quite terrifying I imagine to alarmists. Skyrocketing total heat input, nose-diving albedo... there'd be no reason to see an end to it except for the fact that the Earth has been through countless ice ages and warm periods before. If we have anything to fear, it's the cold, not heat. We're not Venus.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
Almost without exception, alarmists see change as something catastrophically fearful

Not at all, just change that threatens to wipe out civilization. You are an idiot.
Evidence based on Earth's history clearly indicate the planet and its flora and fauna have the capacity to change, often quite quickly, to deal with new conditions.

Well, sure. After the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction where THREE FOURTHS OF PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE WAS WIPED OUT, including the DOMINANT SPECIES, it took millions of years to recover, but ummm...ahhh...

What is an existential threat, and how does it work?
The fear-driven pessimism from alarmists seems based only on studies.

And...evidence. But I forgot we're in the middle of confirming your bias. Proceed.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
"Perhaps you and your MS would like to explain how the Earth has survived and life has flourished on an ever-changing planet without our help for billions of years?"
---------------------------------------

YES, I would!

We weren't there for most of it. We are only about two to three million years old as a species.

Go back to those times or simulate them and go live in it. I hope you are anaerobic.
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2016
Not at all, just change that threatens to wipe out civilization. You are an idiot.


And I bet you still take offense to being called an "alarmist" or irrational after making statements like that.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
I'll personally trust history

So, in other words, because some life will survive, possibly not including us, it's ok if we wipe out the rest?
and present-day reality over a human's ability to predict the future any day.

Present
http://link.sprin...#/page-1
Day
http://onlinelibr...000/full
Reality
http://www.nature...dian.com
http://www.nature...89a.html
http://www.pnas.o...474.full

I repeat. You are an idiot.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
Not at all, just change that threatens to wipe out civilization. You are an idiot.


And I bet you still take offense to being called an "alarmist" or irrational after making statements like that.


No. I take offense at the fact that buffoons like you, who can't be bothered to look at the sky to confirm that it is blue, are currently in power and keeping the rest of us from doing anything substantial about an existential threat that we are causing.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
I want jeff to tell me which previous Earth period he wants to go back to.

I suggest the Hadean.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
I want jeff to tell me which previous Earth period he wants to go back to.


I you don't tell jeff what you want instead of all of us? You Skippys sure look like the kid playing king of the hill when you write those silly comments to the everybody when you are having trouble with one poster.

I suggest the Hadean.


Does jeff have you on ignore? That's the only reason I can think of that you would suggest to everybody what jeff should do.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
No. I take offense at the fact that buffoons like you, who can't be bothered to look at the sky to confirm that it is blue, are currently in power and keeping the rest of us from doing anything substantial about an existential threat that we are causing.


Sorry to say it, but you're delusional... as are any of the people who give a post like that a 5-star ranking. I have as much power as you but what you're basically saying is you want someone else to do the work for you when the truth is, if you believe so strongly about something you should already be taking action yourself. Turn off your damned computer, turn off your a/c and heat and start walking everywhere you need to go. If you're not doing it already you're a hypocrite to sit here and pretend a person with an opinion is somehow holding you up from doing your part. What YOU do is the ONLY thing you have control over. You don't control others nor do you control outcomes. Get used to it.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
Yes yes yes, the main drivers of emissions are power plants and the entire agricultural industry but my solar-powered computer use is the problem. This is such a furphy. I'm an extraordinary human being but even I can't completely restructure the entire world's economy by walking to work every day. You have evidence, you get together and act on it. The end. The ridiculous US-centric individualism that says each human is an island and only individual acts matter is as ahistorical and as illogical as it always was. And also the problem. We wouldn't be in this mess without it.

And I refuse to not be amused by the claim we're hypocrites for not acting when COP21 only just (finally) happened. The claim "we haven't acted before we made a decision to act" is as dumb as when anti used it. We've been * trying * to get people to act on the evidence. That's the entire point.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
Gosh, jeff, give us time. They can't put up my PV system this week because of the rain, and my electric vehicle gets charged at night. My power comes from PG&E with perhaps the most diverse set of generation technologies on Earth, from PV and Solar Thermal to geothermal to nukes to all kinds of efficient gas to landfill gas to wind, pumped storage, hydro, and we even used the emergency generators in the facilities of our customers when needed at peak in the 1980's.

What is your idea? And what have you done?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
And what have you done?
What george has done apparently is spent his wifes hard-earned money on a load of expensive tech goodies which is going to cost her far more than it will ever save her.

Despite what george told her.

"Psychopaths just have what it takes to defraud and bilk others: they can be fast talkers, they can be charming, they can be self-assured and at ease in social situations; they are cool under pressure, unfazed by the possibility of being found out, and totally ruthless. And even when they are exposed, they can carry on as if nothing has happened, often making their accusers the targets of accusations of being victimized by THEM."

-Of course I could be wrong.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
@leetennant
Well said.

@jeffensley
1) Stop with the chicanery. The first step to solving a problem is admitting it's there in the first place. As a species, we've barely gotten to this crucial step because of people like you.

2) Screw you. That's not very practical for me to do, when OUR INFRASTRUCTURE is built around carbon emissions. All I would be doing is making my own life drastically harder (I work with computers for a living) and negligibly reducing GHG emissions while lemmings like you merrily continue our march towards a 4+ degree temperature increase by the end of the century. As leetennant implied, the solution is global, not individual.

3) Even if a person contributes to a problem that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Exxon mobile just admitted that global warming is man-made, and they are of the largest GHG contributors.

Please do the rest of us a favor and ride a rocket ship to Venus, and take your facile thinking with you.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
@jeffensley
Also, I noticed, despite your risible Tu Quoque fallacy, that you failed to actually respond to the links I provided, which showed that the present day reality you claim to subscribe to actually overwhelmingly supports the predictions of climate scientists. Weather is getting more extreme. Droughts and heat waves are increasing in frequency, and ecosystems are being affected, just as predicted. But, why respond to this, when you can divert the conversation towards my own personal qualities? That way, you can keep hiding your head in the sand.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
-Of course I could be wrong.

Given your track record on this site, I would put my money on that possibility.
jeffensley
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
So in the end then, you seek to control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings. To those of you who have actually done something, cheers. You're walking the walk. But don't presume because you're sold on the pseudo-science of models that everyone else is supposed to be too. There is no evidence whatsoever (besides models) to suggest that drastically reducing CO2 output is going to effect any change whatsoever on the climate. All we can say with accuracy is that heat POTENTIAL decreases IF the result of an action we take is a decrease in CO2 concentrations...which we cannot presume due to natural climate feedback from warming among other variables such as geophysical sources. Again, I'm all for changing over to renewable energy, I just don't want to set the precedent that computer models are mature enough yet to deserve a place in policy-making. As far as the climate is concerned, they are nowhere close.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
So in the end then, you seek to control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings.

No, you moron. I am trying to get people like you to admit there's a problem.
But don't presume because you're sold on the pseudo-science of models

You say this as if there is any evidence, let alone sufficient evidence to warrant such a claim.
There is no evidence whatsoever (besides models) to suggest that drastically reducing CO2 output is going to effect any change whatsoever on the climate.

See my links, which you STILL have not responded to.
Also, do you understand conservation of energy? Where do you think the energy from energy trapped by the extra CO2 is going? Maybe to tall the hot air in your comments?
Also, if you want evidence that reducing CO2 will do that, here is a list of papers that show it:
https://www.skept...nced.htm
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016
So in the end then, you seek to control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings..


You mean unlike the fossil fuel industry which, by controlling the methods of energy production, already control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings. Every time we make a societal decision we control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings. That is what a society is. We live in one by the virtue of there being other people in existence. And as people we make choices about the way in which we live our lives.The world we live in didn't just happen, you know. People with power and money made decisions about the way in which other people would live their lives.

This is why libertarianism is so... dumb.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
All we can say with accuracy is that heat POTENTIAL decreases IF the result of an action we take is a decrease in CO2 concentrations...

And if we know anything about the history of modern science it's that when it overwhelmingly makes a prediction, it is likely to be false.

Oh...wait. The opposite of that is true.

Yes, clearly, when the sum of human knowledge tells us we are headed for trouble, the most rational thing to do is to do nothing and hope we are wrong. Yes, that's how that works.
which we cannot presume due to natural climate feedback from warming among other variables such as geophysical sources.

Which have been shown, via the link I provided in the last comment NOT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE MAJORITY OF WARMING.
just don't want to set the precedent that computer models are mature enough yet to deserve a place in policy-making.

Another baseless claim. I have provided you with several peer reviewed sources. Please provide me with your own.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
You mean unlike the fossil fuel industry which, by controlling the methods of energy production, already control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings.

Exactly.

Yes, jeffensley, clearly every person has the resources to just take themselves off the grid. This is the most practical thing to do in making a difference in the world.

This is why libertarianism is so... dumb.

There are two types of libertarians: bad people, and people who are unaware of bad people.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
You mean unlike the fossil fuel industry which, by controlling the methods of energy production, already control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings. Every time we make a societal decision we control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings. That is what a society is. We live in one by the virtue of there being other people in existence. And as people we make choices about the way in which we live our lives.The world we live in didn't just happen, you know. People with power and money made decisions about the way in which other people would live their lives.

This is why libertarianism is so... dumb.

The rant of the village idiot, who would cast blame on others for doing exactly what he seeks to do. Listen up moron, if you want to end the fossil fuel industry then stop using their products.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
The rant of the village idiot, who would cast blame on others for doing exactly what he seeks to do. Listen up moron, if you want to end the fossil fuel industry then stop using their products.

Again, I don't know why you think this is a practical solution to the problem. After all, 52% of people in the US don't believe global warming is man made, so leetenant, or me, swearing off of them when they form such an integral part of society would be counter-productive.

Are you prepared to give up fossil fuels? Of course not.

What really needs to happen is
1) Acknowledgement by society as a whole that AGW is a problem that can be addressed by reducing GHG emissions
2) A concerted effort BY SOCIETY to reduce GHG emissions.

Notice how I have not yet proposed how we do that, which leaves room for doing it in a manner that does not harm civilization, which likely means phasing their use out over time. Of course, the longer we wait, the shorter we'll have to do this.
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2016
@jeffensley
Also, I noticed, despite your risible Tu Quoque fallacy, that you failed to actually respond to the links I provided, which showed that the present day reality you claim to subscribe to actually overwhelmingly supports the predictions of climate scientists. Weather is getting more extreme. Droughts and heat waves are increasing in frequency, and ecosystems are being affected, just as predicted.


https://upload.wi...2011.png

Do you see a trend?

http://graphics8....raph.gif

Or here? F2-F5 down overall. Weak storm increase likely due to increased reporting/observation according to the researchers.

http://models.wea...nths.png

How about here?

leetennant
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
You mean unlike the fossil fuel industry which, by controlling the methods of energy production, already control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings. Every time we make a societal decision we control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings. That is what a society is. We live in one by the virtue of there being other people in existence. And as people we make choices about the way in which we live our lives.The world we live in didn't just happen, you know. People with power and money made decisions about the way in which other people would live their lives.

This is why libertarianism is so... dumb.

The rant of the village idiot, who would cast blame on others for doing exactly what he seeks to do. Listen up moron, if you want to end the fossil fuel industry then stop using their products.


We're trying to. By restructuring the world economy away from using them. That is literally what we're attempting to do.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
https://upload.wi...2011.png

Do you see a trend?

I didn't say droughts were increasing in the US. I said they were increasing PERIOD--as in globally.

Since you obviously prefer pictures over actual peer reviewed studies, here is a chart for you:
http://www.nature..._F1.html

Do YOU see a trend?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/07/science/tornado.graph.gif

What is the source?

http://models.wea...nths.png

How about here?

Climate scientists are actually in disagreement about whether global warming increases the number of tropical storms. See:
https://www.skept...ming.htm

On the other hand, it is pretty unequivocal, that it is increasing storm POWER. Here is another pretty picture for your simple mind:
http://www3.epa.g...2015.png
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
@jeffensely
not to mention that you STILL have not actually addressed the links I gave you.

Admittedly, some of them are behind paywalls, but there is at least one that you can read for yourself.

Instead of responding to THEIR arguments, all you did is ignore them, and find pretty pictures to confirm your bias.

I would also like to note that graphs are ALWAYS subordinate to data. Graphs can be altered to be misleading. Data can't (though interpretation of data can). Sometimes, for example, statistical regression will detect trends that the eye can't. Conversely, sometimes, the eye will detect patterns that aren't there.

The problem with denialists is that you simply don't understand how this all works.

Scientists don't eyeball data. They analyze it. That's why we pay them. Any Joe Schmoe, unacquainted with the nuances of established theory can look at a graph and form an opinion. Why you think your uneducated opinions invalidate those of experts is beyond me.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
We're trying to. By restructuring the world economy away from using them. That is literally what we're attempting to do.

Do you even read the ignorant tripe you type before hitting that submit button (rhetorical).
You claim the fossil fuel industry is "controlling the choices and lifestyles of other human beings". Other than forcing people into paying for more expensive power/fuel and into poverty, how is what you are trying to do any different? Why don't you make the choice for yourself and show others how you can live without fossil fuels so that they can also choose to follow you?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
You claim the fossil fuel industry is "controlling the choices and lifestyles of other human beings". Other than forcing people into paying for more expensive power/fuel and into poverty, how is what you are trying to do any different?

Ugh.

Even if we were evil, greedy, corporatists, trying to force everyone off fossil fuels so that we can pad our wallets, that would not change the reality that overuse of fossil fuels is warming the globe, thereby endangering society. If temperatures rise as much as they are projected to, none of this will matter because much of the earth will no longer be tolerable to live in.

Also, it is different because we are not evil and greedy, but because science is telling us that's what needs to happen.

You are like a diabetic complaining that evil doctors are trying to keep him from enjoying sweets.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
Why don't you make the choice for yourself and show others how you can live without fossil fuels so that they can also choose to follow you?

Dammit chatbot, leetennant and I have already answered this several times. I know you are context free, but at least maybe your creator can alter you so that you stop saying this over and over again.

We are not asking everyone, all at once to give up fossil fuels and live like the Amish. That would be crazy. We are asking society to start the process of phasing fossil fuels, which science tells us will cause catastrophic changes to our way of life, out, replacing them with viable alternatives. How we do that might be a matter of debate, but right now, all we are doing is sitting on our hands. I don't know why you think that that's an acceptable course of action.

Oh right, you are a chatbot. You don't think. You just post random links from the internet.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
You are like a diabetic complaining that evil doctors are trying to keep him from enjoying sweets.

And, village idiot #2 mumbles.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
You are like a diabetic complaining that evil doctors are trying to keep him from enjoying sweets.

And, village idiot #2 mumbles.

So all you have, in response is ad hominem. Got it!
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2016
You are like a diabetic complaining that evil doctors are trying to keep him from enjoying sweets.

And, village idiot #2 mumbles.

So all you have, in response is ad hominem. Got it!


And you apparently don't see the irony in that statement either. Come on guy...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
And you apparently don't see the irony in that statement either. Come on guy...


Try to think harder about this. I know it's difficult.

Let's compare my and antigoracle's approach, shall we?

-I submit peer reviewed studies as evidence for my claims, and use physical arguments to support my claims, but also insult arrogant nitwits like you who can't be bothered to look at the evidence right in front of them, and who think they're being clever when they use silly arguments like,

"Climate is always changing"
or
"Climate models are just models"
or
"Global warming is a lie because you refuse to go off the grid."
or
"It's just a prediction."

-antigoracle just insults when he is corrected.

See the difference?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
@jeffensley
BTW, still waiting for a response to the links I provided. I know that sand feels cool in your hair, and all, but you might want to pull your head out of there and take a look at hard evidence for once. Some of the papers even have pretty pictures for you.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2016
There goes village idiot #2 again. Hey idiot, I questioned your twin, idiot #1's statement below
the fossil fuel industry which, by controlling the methods of energy production, already control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings

Now if you dare, tell us how is the fossil fuel industry controlling choices and lifestyles?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2016
There goes village idiot #2 again. Hey idiot, I questioned your twin, idiot #1's statement below
the fossil fuel industry which, by controlling the methods of energy production, already control the choices and lifestyles of other human beings

Now if you dare, tell us how is the fossil fuel industry controlling choices and lifestyles?

In the interest of not derailing this conversation, I will answer that question if you look at the article in the first link, and respond to what it's saying. Be specific. Show me that you've at least taken a look at the paper, and understand what specific claims it is making. If you do this, I will answer your question.

Here is the full text:
http://www.pik-po...2013.pdf
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2016
@jeffensley
BTW, still waiting for a response to the links I provided. I know that sand feels cool in your hair, and all, but you might want to pull your head out of there and take a look at hard evidence for once. Some of the papers even have pretty pictures for you.


I initially started to and then saw the elementary school insults that followed and I thought "Nah, not worth it." If you think you have something important to communicate you should try having a conversation like a grown-up.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2016
I initially started to and then saw the elementary school insults that followed and I thought "Nah, not worth it." If you think you have something important to communicate you should try having a conversation like a grown-up.


Hahah. YOU fired the first salvo by implying I was an alarmist who was catastrophically fearful of change, and when I respond in kind, suddenly, it's not a reasonable conversation? Grow a thicker skin.
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2016
There's a big difference between calling someone an "alarmist" and "fearful" after they've made what a very sensational post and and using direct insults like "idiot" and "moron".
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2016
There's a big difference between calling someone an "alarmist" and "fearful" after they've made what a very sensational post and and using direct insults like "idiot" and "moron".

Well, you tell me I've made a sensational post. I am telling you that you made an idiotic post.

I don't know what else you would call confusing being appropriately concerned about an existential threat (real or imagined) with somehow being afraid of ALL change. That's called faulty generalizing, and idiots do that.

You are also an idiot for confusing a DIRE threat with an ALARMIST one. Alarmist means that the claim its exaggerated, and I am not exaggerating. I am taking my claims DIRECTLY from the evidence.

In addition to this, you are a moron for suggesting that taking myself off the grid is a practical solution to my problem.

Your stupidity abounds. Maybe analyze what you write before posting, and be less offensive, and maybe I won't accuse you of being an idiot. And stop whining.
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2016
Your stupidity abounds. Maybe analyze what you write before posting, and be less offensive, and maybe I won't accuse you of being an idiot. And stop whining.


Welcome to my ignore list... and stop playing on the internet while you're in class. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed in middle-school.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2016
Welcome to my ignore list... and stop playing on the internet while you're in class. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed in middle-school.


RAAAAAGE QUIT!
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2016
jeffensley says
It would be interesting to see psychological profilees of typical alarmists vs. skeptics in this issue
It *should* be noted bulk of alarmists media based, as scientists with integrity & discipline report data & probabilistic assessments re trends AND with error bars !

jeffensley devoid of empathy for many people
Almost without exception, alarmists see change as something catastrophically fearful while skeptics tend to see change more pragmatically. Evidence based on Earth's history clearly indicate the planet and its flora and fauna have the capacity to change, often quite quickly, to deal with new conditions
jeffensley claims to be an "Environmental Scientist" & thinks it ok to ignore plight of all those affected by location or food supply, some 'Scientist' :-(

jeffensley misses point Again
'll personally trust history and present-day reality over a human's ability to predict..
Rate of Change jeffensley !

Learn Physics jeffensley !
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2016
jeffensley Misses the (contemporary) Point
Perhaps you and your MS would like to explain how the Earth has survived and life has flourished on an ever-changing planet without our help for billions of years?
Doh, calamities had LONG time to recover, we (humans) don't have that luxury. Each time you write you show immense lack of concern/empathy for so many from coastal regions to food supply etc

What does jeffensley mean by "flourished" re magnitude/precise period ?

jeffensley betrayed he hasn't studied radiative transfer blurts
If we have anything to fear, it's the cold, not heat. We're not Venus
Utterly Wrong !

ie Obviously we *know* we have virtually constant high energy from Sol, to add heat is very easy, so if cooling of any sort then manufacturing insulators & heat sources is easy & especially so that very process produces more heat as a feedforward byproduct !

Much harder when hotter ie. To cool, process produces More heat, please LEARN Physics !
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2016
jeffensley repeats his pattern faced with logic, evidence * substantiation
I initially started to and then saw the elementary school insults that followed and I thought "Nah, not worth it."
Please note:

jeffensley has old "Appeal to Authority" he blurted at the drop of a hat when faced with a mild challenge long ago, evidence is clear re jeffensley;-

1. Claims to be "Environmental Scientist" (ES) from Virginia tech - but when ?
2. His language is highly qualitative (not scientific)
3. On 2, often vague but, parrots the general AGW denier position
4. Not quantitative, especially re enthalpy, see 2
5. Often goes of tangentially about the past, fails empathy at many levels
6. Ignorance of radiative transfer & CO2 forcing quantification
7. Ignorance of Psychrometry re H2O/clouds re heat
8. Shows resentment/derision for "scientists" yet claims to be one !

Evidence clear, jeffensley tries (but Fails) to subtly obfuscate & render anti-science stance !

Ugh, go away !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.