New maps chart Greenland glaciers' melting risk

April 22, 2016 by Alan Buis, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The new maps show that the seafloor under Store Glacier, shown here, is almost 2,000 feet (600 meters) deeper than previously thought. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Ian Fenty

Many large glaciers in Greenland are at greater risk of melting from below than previously thought, according to new maps of the seafloor around Greenland created by an international research team. Like other recent research findings, the maps highlight the critical importance of studying the seascape under Greenland's coastal waters to better understand and predict global sea level rise.

Researchers from the University of California, Irvine; NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; and other research institutions combined all observations their various groups had made during shipboard surveys of the seafloors in the Uummannaq and Vaigat fjords in west Greenland between 2007 and 2014 with related data from NASA's Operation Icebridge and the NASA/U.S. Geological Survey Landsat satellites. They used the combined data to generate comprehensive maps of the floor around 14 Greenland . Their findings show that previous estimates of ocean depth in this area were as much as several thousand feet too shallow.

Why does this matter? Because glaciers that flow into the ocean melt not only from above, as they are warmed by sun and air, but from below, as they are warmed by water.

In most of the world, a deeper seafloor would not make much difference in the rate of melting, because typically ocean water is warmer near the surface and colder below. But Greenland is exactly the opposite. Surface water down to a depth of almost a thousand feet (300 meters) comes mostly from Arctic river runoff. This thick layer of frigid, fresher water is only 33 to 34 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius). Below it is a saltier layer of warmer ocean water. This layer is currently more than more than 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) warmer than the surface layer, and climate models predict its temperature could increase another 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) by the end of this century.

A comparison of the newly compiled map of the Uummannaq fjord area (left) and an older map (right). Red areas indicate shallower depths, blues and purples deeper.

About 90 percent of Greenland's glaciers flow into the ocean, including the newly mapped ones. In generating estimates of how fast these glaciers are likely to melt, researchers have relied on older maps of seafloor depth that show the glaciers flowing into shallow, cold seas. The new study shows that the older maps were wrong.

"While we expected to find deeper fjords than previous maps showed, the differences are huge," said Eric Rignot of UCI and JPL, lead author of a paper on the research. "They are measured in hundreds of meters, even one kilometer [3,300 feet] in one place." The difference means that the glaciers actually reach deeper, warmer waters, making them more vulnerable to faster melting as the oceans warm.

Coauthor Ian Fenty of JPL noted that earlier maps were based on sparse measurements mostly collected several miles offshore. Mapmakers assumed that the sloped upward as it got nearer the coast. That's a reasonable supposition, but it's proving to be incorrect around Greenland.

Rignot and Fenty are co-investigators in NASA's five-year Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) field campaign, which is creating similar charts of the seafloor for the entire Greenland coastline. Fenty said that OMG's first mapping cruise last summer found similar results. "Almost every glacier that we visited was in waters that were far, far deeper than the maps showed."

The researchers also found that besides being deeper overall, the seafloor depth is highly variable. For example, the new revealed one pair of side-by-side glaciers whose bottom depths vary by about 1,500 feet (500 meters). "These data help us better interpret why some glaciers have reacted to ocean warming while others have not," Rignot said.

The lack of detailed maps has hampered climate modelers like Fenty who are attempting to predict the melting of the glaciers and their contribution to rise. "The first time I looked at this area and saw how few data were available, I just threw my hands up," Fenty said. "If you don't know the seafloor depth, you can't do a meaningful simulation of the ocean circulation."

Explore further: Greenland's ice sheet from 40,000 feet

More information: E. Rignot et al. Bathymetry data reveal glaciers vulnerable to ice-ocean interaction in Uummannaq and Vaigat glacial fjords, west Greenland, Geophysical Research Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1002/2016GL067832

Related Stories

Greenland's ice sheet from 40,000 feet

March 30, 2016

The Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) field campaign team is flying NASA's G-III aircraft at about 40,000 feet. On a clear day, this altitude also provides a stunning perspective of one of the world's two great ice sheets (the ...

Greenland's undercut glaciers melting faster than thought

July 22, 2015

Greenland's glaciers flowing into the ocean are grounded deeper below sea level than previously measured, allowing intruding ocean water to badly undercut the glacier faces. That process will raise sea levels around the world ...

Recommended for you

Scientists find missing piece in glacier melt predictions

October 15, 2018

Stanford scientists have revealed the presence of water stored within a glacier in Greenland, where the rapidly changing ice sheet is a major contributor to the sea-level rise North America will experience in the next 100 ...

103 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2.4 / 5 (35) Apr 22, 2016

Many large glaciers in Greenland are at greater risk of melting from below than previously thought, according to new maps of the seafloor


older maps of seafloor depth that show the glaciers flowing into shallow, cold seas. The new study shows that the older maps were wrong.


The lack of detailed maps has hampered climate modelers like Fenty who are attempting to predict the melting of the glaciers and their contribution to global sea level rise. "The first time I looked at this area and saw how few data were available, I just threw my hands up," Fenty said.


The above quotes from the Author will make for a weekend of tons of fun from the AGW crowd living here. We will spend the weekend getting fiery denial sermons from the devotees of the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (38) Apr 22, 2016
Benni spluttered
.. above quotes from the Author will make for a weekend of tons of fun from the AGW crowd living here. We will spend the weekend getting fiery denial sermons from the devotees of the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick
Really ?

Written by he who claims to be Electrical & Nuclear Engineer who has proven yet again he/she/it knows nothing of "radiative heat transfer" re molecular vibrational states which a "Nuclear Engineer" who actually passed the qualifications would *have* to know fully & completely to calculate basic & relevant heat transfers in various nuclear cycles !

Where'd you graduate again Benni ?

Many Nuclear plants you designed ignoring heat transfer, should we given em a wide berth ?

Why are you even here at all, perhaps you'd craft a Differential Equation to arrive at the inflection point optimum of posts vs value vs attention as to when you should just quit & not embarrass yourself constantly with completely unsupportable claims ?
Benni
2.4 / 5 (37) Apr 22, 2016
Wheeeee......off to a good start & the weekend hasn't even started yet with the faithful already checking in, Muttering Mike & the the 1st semester physics guy have already genuflected.
Pumastar
2.9 / 5 (27) Apr 22, 2016

Written by he who claims to be Electrical & Nuclear Engineer who has proven yet again he/she/it knows nothing of "radiative heat transfer" re molecular vibrational states which a "Nuclear Engineer"

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


lol... good one Mike, you can take the baboon out of the bush, but not the bush out of the baboon aka benni (antisciencegorilla/antigoracle sockpuppet)
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (25) Apr 22, 2016
Wheeeee......off to a good start & the weekend hasn't even started yet with the faithful already checking in, Muttering Mike & the the 1st semester physics guy have already genuflected.

looks like i r baboon (antigoracle/benni) and his goon edd (the long one from ed edd and eddy) are warming up for another 6 love loss on physorg..... monkeys... 3...2....1
come and get your bannanas...! :D
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (26) Apr 22, 2016
and here he is in his full glory :D

http://vignette1....05175425
Benni
2.4 / 5 (36) Apr 22, 2016
Benni - can't even understand a very basic process issue - and instead have to make a game of trying to piss on science.


Hey there Mr bigtime AGW guy, it was science professionals such as myself trying to explain to you science neophytes that your AGW Narratives had no basis in science for the Greenland Ice Melt in the first place. We've been telling you that entire area of the N Atlantic has been well known for it's volatile volcanic activity during past eons in which Greenland has been substantially ice free, but you didn't like that "science" because it didn't fit your baseless narratives.

So Greeno, much to your chagrin, the "science" is on my side because I'm well educated in solving Rate of Reaction Equations & you don't even know what those are, in the meantime you & Al Gore remain stuck with your empty Narratives that were never based in science in the first place & now you're trying to find ways to backtrack huge screwups.

ColoradoBob
2.9 / 5 (29) Apr 22, 2016
Benni - can't even understand a very basic process issue - and instead have to make a game of trying to piss on science.


LIe, deny, rinse repeat.

leetennant
4.6 / 5 (20) Apr 22, 2016

The above quotes from the Author will make for a weekend of tons of fun from the AGW crowd living here. We will spend the weekend getting fiery denial sermons from the devotees of the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick.


Why? There's nothing in there that bears on the theory of AGW.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (21) Apr 22, 2016
There's nothing in there that bears on the theory of AGW.

Really?? The theory of AGW, where you can just make shit up. Like--
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE.
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-warmer-winters-cooling-climate.html
Benni
2.5 / 5 (36) Apr 22, 2016
The above quotes from the Author will make for a weekend of tons of fun from the AGW crowd living here. We will spend the weekend getting fiery denial sermons from the devotees of the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick.


Why? There's nothing in there that bears on the theory of AGW.


............that is until a few weeks ago when the scientific data came out proving that Greenland Ice Melt was occurring from the "bottom up", and not "top down" in accordance with AGW theory.

Now that you've been forced by the preponderance of evidence to drop the AGW Greenland Ice Melt theory, you're trying to put out the impression you were always ambivalent about it in the first place? But all the while it was one of the biggest talking points of your scare tactic narratives. Then it was science is that it? So what is it now?

You should tell Al Gore you want your money back for that pathetically scienceless book of his you got suckered into buying.
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2016
I'm still waiting for your answer as to why any of this relates to the theory of AGW. Because that was your argument. That our need for more understanding of the way warming is manifesting in this specific regional area negates the theory. I'm holding my breath over here.

Your argument is analogous to this:

They have discovered that lung cancer mestastisies differently then we initially expected. To which you reply - well, that puts paid to this whole "caused by smoking" thing.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (34) Apr 22, 2016
I'm still waiting for your answer as to why any of this relates to the theory of AGW Because that was your argument


That our need for more understanding of the way warming
Which "warming": Air over the Greenland ice? The land beneath the Greenland ice?

You very well know that the proponents of AGW Theory held what they thought was an ace in hand when Arctic Ice melt opened the Arctic Passage & along with it causing Greenland Ice Melt. Your mistake was jumping onto the CO² bandwagon with deafening proclamations it was man made CO² causing the Big Melt.

Now that you've been caught with your pants all the way down, you neophytes are trying to convince us what? That AGW Theory never posited a claim that Greenland Ice Melt was caused by man made CO² emissions? Well, rah, rah for you leet, you keep adding to the entertainment value for what I feared would become a boring weekend.

leetennant
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 22, 2016
There's absolutely nothing that says that the Greenland ice melt isn't caused by global warming. Nothing in this article or previous articles on the melt.

The article greenonions linked to even says

"Exceptional melt episodes dominated by non-radiant energy are expected to occur more frequently in the future due to climate change."

Which makes it clear the melt is caused by AGW - it's just the mechanics of it we don't sufficiently understand yet.

All there is here is confirmation bias by people who are so blinkered they've stopped being able to read. It's getting tiresome, frankly.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (33) Apr 22, 2016
Which makes it clear the melt is caused by AGW - it's just the mechanics of it we don't sufficiently understand yet.


The "mechanics of it" isn't that hard, you just don't like the truth of it. All you're doing is tripping all over yourself trying to come up with reasons why man made CO² emissions should remain the overriding component of the Greenland Ice Melt Equation.

OK, you & Greeno imagine you have so much "science" on your side, that can only mean you have data for the percent of the Greenland ice melt that is caused from "bottom up" vs. "top down". So what is that percent? Careful, try not to fudge too much, you've already been caught in one "inconvenient truth", you don't want to continue embarrassing yourself by getting caught up in another.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 22, 2016
Your assumption is that 'bottom up' melt *isn't AGW*. Which I am asking you to prove, as I've just spent four posts explaining. Because it demonstrably is AGW and so your entire argument is specious. As usual.

I mean, you do understand that these studies are showing that warming for Greenland is underestimated (as it is for the Antarctic) because AGW is causing bottom up melting as well as top down? That this is evidence *for* the theory?
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (24) Apr 22, 2016
Your assumption is that 'bottom up' melt *isn't AGW*. Which I am asking you to prove, as I've just spent four posts explaining. Because it demonstrably is AGW and so your entire argument is specious. As usual.

@Benni
By now you should realize that no amount of proof could satisfy those who would so easily make up crap like the following.
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (35) Apr 22, 2016
Your assumption is that 'bottom up' melt *isn't AGW
Of course you have given no thought to PROVING that present day volcanic activity beneath Greenland is caused by AGW CO² emissions, but that doesn't stop you from pushing on a string in trying to convince other AGW crooners that the day will soon come by which you can again pick up & run with yet another AGW Narrative that man made CO² emissions are causing increased volcanic activity many miles beneath the Earth's crust.

Which I am asking you to prove, as I've just spent four posts explaining. Because it demonstrably is AGW and so your entire argument is specious


Then the onus is on you to prove man made CO² emissions cause volcanic activity which originate from the core of the planet. Why do you imagine the onus is on me to come up with science proving CO² man made emissions DO NOT cause volcanic activity? As usual, when you neophytes run out of science you head for backwardation arguments.


Benni
2.4 / 5 (34) Apr 22, 2016
@Benni
By now you should realize that no amount of proof could satisfy those who would so easily make up crap like the following.
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE.
......Yeah, I know ag, but I just love the entertainment value in watching these AGW Neophytes trip all over themselves with their Funny Farm Science narratives. I expect the next inconvenient truth book we get from Al Gore will be the one to address a newly proposed narrative laying out a case for man made CO² emissions causing increased volcanic activity emanating from the planet's core, it'll be here sooner than you think, I'm simply posting a word to the wise for Part 2 of the AGW Narrative.

TehDog
4.7 / 5 (32) Apr 22, 2016
Excuse me for butting in, but...
Benni is a very silly troll. Has amusement value, his DM refutations are fun, but has never posted anything but daft denials and appeals to Einstein and Zwicky. (He doesn't understand them, just throws the names out there). Oh, and claims to know maths.

Has about as much understanding of science as my left foot.

AGW seems to be the new DM, enjoy :]

Benni
2.4 / 5 (35) Apr 22, 2016
Has about as much understanding of science as my left foot.
.......and your entire body is composed of just a "left foot"? I'm trying to picture you eating a hamburger.
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 23, 2016
Thank goodness ratings of the comments reflect their merit. Lots of progress in that regard over the last few years.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (28) Apr 23, 2016
Benni (Bee) more unsupportable claim
... it was science professionals such as myself trying to explain .... no basis in science for the Greenland Ice Melt...
Ah, a professional ! got paid yet ?

As a claimed Electrical/Nuclear engineer, who "knows" a Differential Equation (DE), figured differential power flow (DPF):-

1. Geological re strata thermal resistivity
VS
2. GHG radiative forcing re ice specific heat

& both integrated over what area & period ?

Bee claims
..I'm well educated in solving Rate of Reaction Equations..
Really ?

Then this is easy:-
3. Craft 1&2 into a DE, apply Rate of Reaction as heat flow & get Δ ice mass per year ?

Bee claims
.. "science" is on my side
Prove it & do 3, you added quotes so don't you understand Science then :-(

Bee betrays himself *again*
.. baseless narratives
Sure, your words so, who's baseless & who's Neophyte so do 3. ?

While buzzing aimlessly, can Bee do any DPF calcs, if not then False - again !
Benni
2.5 / 5 (33) Apr 23, 2016
.....that is until a few weeks ago when the scientific data came out proving that Greenland Ice Melt was occurring from the "bottom up", and not "top down" in accordance with AGW theory.


This has been known for a long time


For sure it has been known for a long time, but you AGW neophytes living here on PO were never bashful in showing your resentment to the presentation of that evidence..........Now you are running for cover by claiming you have ALWAYS accepted the "bottom up" evidence, when in fact you can't produce a PO track record supporting it. Or if you can, produce it.

Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (32) Apr 23, 2016
Benni, this time has "lost it" with
... known for a long time, but you AGW neophytes living here on PO were never bashful in showing your resentment to the presentation of that evidence
Scientists/Engineers whether Electrical or Nuclear and professional too (as you claim to be) just *don't* write like you in any way shape or form - you're losing your mind !

Please leave us alone, go for a long holiday, reflect on how you appear before those that have actually done the hard yards, studied & been in industry for decades, no more jokes Benni.

Understand Bplease, idle claims don't cut it, wasting people's time reflects badly on you.

If you ever get your intellect back into gear (next year) why should radiative transfer be ignored ?

Physics, Maths, Science at the higher ethics & dialectic - no more groundless claims

shakes head :-(
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (28) Apr 23, 2016
There's nothing in there that bears on the theory of AGW.

Really?? The theory of AGW, where you can just make shit up. Like--
The predictions for hurricanes and cyclones were for LESS of larger MAGNITUDE.
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-warmer-winters-cooling-climate.html


i r baboon aka antigoracle babooning up to present his monkey business with another no brainer comment... here monkey monkey... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (28) Apr 23, 2016
The above quotes from the Author will make for a weekend of tons of fun from the AGW crowd living here. We will spend the weekend getting fiery denial sermons from the devotees of the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick.


Why? There's nothing in there that bears on the theory of AGW.


............that is until a few weeks ago when the scientific data came out proving that Greenland Ice Melt was occurring from the "bottom up", and not "top down" in accordance with AGW theory.


aaaa, antisciengorilla monkey won't be complete without his sidekick sockpuppet benni to try and interpret the big science words they stumble upon here on physorg, after all 1 braincell from each, makes 2 (doubling the fun we can poke out of them) ;) ... here monkeys monkeys....
gkam
2.5 / 5 (32) Apr 23, 2016
Why do we have to include personal insults?

The Deniers have already proven they are overcome by political prejudice. They have revealed their character to all of us, which is probably embarrassment enough.
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (28) Apr 23, 2016
Which makes it clear the melt is caused by AGW - it's just the mechanics of it we don't sufficiently understand yet.


The "mechanics of it" isn't that hard, you just don't like the truth of it. All you're doing is tripping all over yourself trying to come up with reasons why man made CO² emissions should remain the overriding component of the Greenland Ice Melt Equation.

OK, you & Greeno imagine you have so much "science" on your side, that can only mean you have data for the percent of the Greenland ice melt that is caused from "bottom up" vs. "top down". So what is that percent? Careful, try not to fudge too much, you've already been caught in one "inconvenient truth", you don't want to continue embarrassing yourself by getting caught up in another.


oooooh this one got him looking really dumb ...(yet again...) :D keep 'em coming... tonight's going to be fun...
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (27) Apr 23, 2016
Benni, this time has "lost it" with
... known for a long time, but you AGW neophytes living here on PO were never bashful in showing your resentment to the presentation of that evidence
Scientists/Engineers whether Electrical or Nuclear and professional too (as you claim to be) just *don't* write like you in any way shape or form - you're losing your mind !

Please leave us alone, go for a long holiday, reflect on how you appear before those that have actually done the hard yards, studied & been in industry for decades, no more jokes Benni.

Understand Bplease, idle claims don't cut it, wasting people's time reflects badly on you.

If you ever get your intellect back into gear (next year) why should radiative transfer be ignored ?

(


benni aka antisgoracle is known for losing it everytime he typed a letter... ;) see dumb replies and the 1 ratings throughout the years .. :D
Pumastar
3 / 5 (30) Apr 23, 2016
Why do we have to include personal insults?

The Deniers have already proven they are overcome by political prejudice. They have revealed their character to all of us, which is probably embarrassment enough.


Because the comments are just too dumb and hilarious not to include lol....
looki what i found antigoracle....antigoracle picking his nosy...now now... naughty monkey ! :D

https://encrypted...xvG-c48-
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (23) Apr 23, 2016
good one puma, don't know where you coming from, but you sure making us laugh...lol !
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (21) Apr 23, 2016
"The lack of detailed maps has hampered climate modelers like Fenty who are attempting to predict the melting of the glaciers and their contribution to global sea level rise. "The first time I looked at this area and saw how few data were available, I just threw my hands up," Fenty said. "If you don't know the seafloor depth, you can't do a meaningful simulation of the ocean circulation."

So, the "old maps" were all wrong as to the depth of the seafloor. Which means that it's back to the drawing board and maybe get it right this time.
The article doesn't even bother to mention that up-flowing magma under Greenland is melting the ice sheet and causing rivers of melted ice to flow under the surface of the ice sheet. But we knew that already whether or not it is mentioned.

The map on the right indicating shallower depth is false. The new map needs to be validated with even more investigation.
"Almost every glacier that we visited was in waters that were far, far deeper(...)"
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (24) Apr 23, 2016
Thank goodness ratings of the comments reflect their merit. Lots of progress in that regard over the last few years.
- Ojorf
LOL If that were true, Otto and his sock puppets would have all been consistently down voted. But they all get FIVES. Why is that? Well, it must be because of all the sock puppetry that is allowed on Phys.org and has been since TheghostofOtto1923 (Otto Skorzeny the Nazi) began creating dozens, maybe hundreds of sock puppets back around 2006 or before.
Obviously, those commenters who don't want to get down voted for their comments have to do some ass-kissing on Otto, Stumpyrump and Otto's other puppets. One hand washes the other, so it seems on Phys.org threads.
I get ONES from Otto, et al...and I have no problem with that.
Caliban
3.2 / 5 (24) Apr 23, 2016
Why? There's nothing in there that bears on the theory of AGW.

............that is until a few weeks ago when the scientific data came out proving that Greenland Ice Melt was occurring from the "bottom up", and not "top down" in accordance with AGW theory.


And there you go again, nneBi, with the same exact horseshite claim.

SHOW US THE SCIENCE that says icemelt in Greenland is primarily caused by geothermal heat.

Otherwise, and in the meantime, shut your stupid, lying troll-hole.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (26) Apr 23, 2016
Thank goodness ratings of the comments reflect their merit. Lots of progress in that regard over the last few years.
- Ojorf
LOL If that were true, Otto and his sock puppets would have all been consistently down voted. But they all get FIVES. Why is that? Well, it must be because of all the sock puppetry that is allowed on Phys.org and has been since TheghostofOtto1923 (Otto Skorzeny the Nazi) began creating dozens, maybe hundreds of sock puppets back around 2006 or before.
Obviously, those commenters who don't want to get down voted for their comments have to do some ass-kissing on Otto, Stumpyrump and Otto's other puppets. One hand washes the other, so it seems on Phys.org threads.
I get ONES from Otto, et al...and I have no problem with that.


Then stop whining about the "ottobots" and get on with it, fer chrissakes. Your comments make it very plain that you do very much care about your comment ratings.

obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (23) Apr 24, 2016
Thank goodness ratings of the comments reflect their merit. Lots of progress in that regard over the last few years.
- Ojorf
LOL If that were true, Otto and his sock puppets would have all been consistently down voted. But they all get FIVES. Why is that? Well, it must be because of all the sock puppetry that is allowed on Phys.org and has been since TheghostofOtto1923 (Otto Skorzeny the Nazi) began creating maybe hundreds of sock puppets back around 2006 or before.(...)One hand washes the other, so it seems on Phys.org threads.
I get ONES from Otto, et al...and I have no problem with that.


Then stop whining about the "ottobots" and get on with it, fer chrissakes. Your comments make it very plain that you do very much care about your comment ratings.

- Caliban
Actually, the ratings mean a big fat zero, but it may mean the world to others. Something to do with ego, pride, misery for lack of a FIVE.
Hey Cal...how you doing, cher? I'm doing fine, me
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (23) Apr 24, 2016
Why? There's nothing in there that bears on the theory of AGW.

............that is until a few weeks ago when the scientific data came out proving that Greenland Ice Melt was occurring from the "bottom up", and not "top down" in accordance with AGW theory.


And there you go again, nneBi, with the same exact horseshite claim.

SHOW US THE SCIENCE that says icemelt in Greenland is primarily caused by geothermal heat.

Otherwise, and in the meantime, shut your stupid, lying troll-hole.
- Cal
Tell you what, Cal...I'm gonna stand in for Benni until he gets back, and I will search for the evidence(s) that volcanic action as magma under Greenland is primarily causing the ice underneath the ice sheet to melt and flow. Fair enough?
Oh BTW, try to remember that Summer IS approaching and warm weather with it.
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (25) Apr 24, 2016
Thank goodness ratings of the comments reflect their merit. Lots of progress in that regard over the last few years. - Ojorf
LOL If that were true, Otto and his sock puppets would have all been consistently down voted. But they all get FIVES. Why is that is allowed on Phys.org and has been since TheghostofOtto1923 (Oeems on Phys.org threads.
I get ONES from Otto, et al...and I have no problem with that.
- Caliban
Actually, the ratings mean a big fat zero, but it may mean the world to others. Something to do with ego, pride, misery for lack of a FIVE.
Hey Cal


no antigoricle monkey sockpuppet, the ratings mean a lot,it has something to do with intellect and it shows how dumb you've been, posting ludricous comments with each new sock you create thats why we like to poke fun :D and yes, we can see you are doing fine posting dumb comments for almost a decade now lol... keep 'em coming.... :D
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (24) Apr 24, 2016
Why? There's nothing in there that bears on the theory of AGW.

............that is until a few weeks ago when the scientific data came out proving that Greenland Ice Melt was occurring from the "bottom up", and not "top down" in accordance with AGW theory.


And there you go again, nneBi, with the same exact horseshite claim.

SHOW US THE SCIENCE that says icemelt in Greenland is primarily caused by geothermal heat.

Otherwise, and in the meantime, shut your stupid, lying troll-hole.
- Cal
Tell you what, Cal...I'm gonna stand in for Benni until he gets back, and I will search for the evidence(s) that volcanic action as magma under Greenland is primarily causing the ice underneath the ice sheet to melt and flow. Fair enough?
Oh BTW, try to remember that Summer IS approaching and warm weather with it.


aaa yes ! bring in your benni sock.... pretty please..... i got a special insult just for your benni sock... ;D
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (25) Apr 24, 2016
sox TSo if you are going to stand in for benni - you have to provide evidence that the ice sheets are not melting from the top down. Benni clearly asserts that the ice sheets are not melting from the top down. This very article states Because glaciers that flow into the ocean melt not only from above, as they are warmed by sun and air, but from below, as they are warmed by water. Benni says "the science is on my side" - but not even one link to support the assertion. We are still waiting.


He'll support his stance with another monkey dance, lots of entertainment here today, i'm loving it :D
antigoracle aka obama's soks aka benni's team of monkey puppets is on benni's side that we know, science on the other hand is for the intelligent.... ;) well said green
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (23) Apr 24, 2016
WHO is gonna support a stance by dancing with HeloMenelo? This I gots ta see. LOL
Ok...it seems that the vast majority of websites cater mainly TO your AGW fallacy, and most ignore the fact that a huge amount of that CO2 is coming from fissures underneath the ice sheets - both in Greenland and in western Antarctica. Iceland is included.
IOW...we are in for quite a ride, people. The following are the links that I was able to find that explained how and why volcanic activity is causing ice sheets and glaciers to melt from the heat of magma. Also, pollutants, soot and dust from volcanos tend to cover ice sheets, causing them to not be as reflective as they should be.
This is NATURE, folks, and humans are adding a piddling amount of CO2 from fossil fuels.
BTW, burning wood in nice fireplaces also adds up, but it does keep a lot of people nice and warm in winter.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (22) Apr 24, 2016
http://phys.org/n...ice.html

http://hailscienc...erosion/

https://arizonada...rming-2/

http://e360.yale....es/2525/

"A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on extreme climate events, published in April, restricts its comments on McGuire's ideas to a single paragraph. While conceding that crust movements resulting from melting ice "may result in an increase in earthquake activity, perhaps on timescales as short as 10 to 200 years," it concludes that "there is low confidence in the nature of recent and projected future seismic responses to anthropogenic climate change."
(cont'd)

obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (22) Apr 24, 2016
(cont'd)
"Why this reticence? McGuire concludes that climate scientists at the IPCC have blind spots, both about geology and about learning the history of what happened during past eras of climate change. The science of geological responses at the end of the last glaciation, he says, "is extremely well established." Nonetheless, the implications for the future remain largely ignored even among the most strident campaigners for action on climate change."

IOW, the nature of the Earth's geology is what is behind Climate Change, and it appears that freezing and melting of water ice is cyclical, along with volcanic activities, with or without human interventions. It has happened, and will happen over and over and humans can only place regulations on each other, as if that is going to make a big difference.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (21) Apr 24, 2016
(cont'd)
And here's some more from the Arizona Daily Independent

https://arizonada...+WARMING
gkam
2.9 / 5 (29) Apr 24, 2016
o_s, did you REALLY think there is ANY credibility in that? Did you read the other headlines from that rag?
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (20) Apr 25, 2016
o_s, did you REALLY think there is ANY credibility in that? Did you read the other headlines from that rag?
- gkam
I didn't have time to read much, as I have been very busy at work on a new project. The last article is also legit and it is true that IPCC people pick and choose, glossing over important information like erosion, etc. They should take everything into consideration and weigh all possibilities, but they don't. AGW is mostly politically motivated, IMO. If they were really sincere, there would have been massive ads everywhere and a steady, continuous campaign already to inform the public that they are exacerbating global warming by their "bad" habits. Without the propaganda aimed at the general populations, it goes ignored pretty much.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (32) Apr 25, 2016
o_s............you're losing most of the AGW Commentary crowd here because you are trying to have civil discussions about science.

When the AGW Enthusiasts even go so far as to believe that CO² emissions from tailpipes of cars can cause volcanic activity (earthquakes too?) extending far beneath the depths of Earth's crust, then you know how shallow are the depths of their education in science which is why they resort to the usual name calling routines.

I don't have anymore time for this, but those of us who are professionals in the fields of math based science know that over time the evidence will continue mounting & speaking for itself.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (23) Apr 25, 2016
Benni (Bee) & yet more unsupportable claims
I don't have anymore time for this, but those of us who are professionals in the fields of math based science know that over time the evidence will continue mounting..
Questions *again*

1.WHY do you & AGW deniers continue ignoring Radiative Transfer ie Infra red?

2. Why can't Bee evaluate the Differential Equation (DE) of radiative transfer & prove to all us dumb "neophytes" that green house gases are *not* at all responsible for >1.5 W/m^2 radiative forcing ie 1?

3. Why can't Bee do even the simple difference aspect asked re Greenland per my posted comment here 23 April 2016 (part 1 vs 2) ?

4. Where/when did Bee get an Electrical/Nuclear Engineering degree ?

5. Where Bee do you practice Science/Math "professionally" ?

6. Why Bee don't you write like a university trained graduate - see 4

7. Why Bee can you only make facile claims yet *never* prove any ?

The buzzing Bee, idle claims don't cut it, proof !
Science1st
Apr 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (21) Apr 25, 2016
Benni (Bee) & yet more unsupportable claims
I don't have anymore time for this, but those of us who are professionals in the fields of math based science know that over time the evidence will continue mounting..
Questions *again*

1.WHY do you & AGW deniers continue ignoring Radiative Transfer ie Infra red?


Because benni bee is antisciengorillas sockpuppet along with his obama socks sock, and we all know what goes in a monkey's head yes ? ... :D
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (21) Apr 25, 2016
WHO is gonna support a stance by dancing with HeloMenelo? This I gots ta see. LOL


The dancing is done by you, and the ridiculing by the clever people, monkey can't see that my ratings have been sound throughout the years, can't say the same for him though with his 1 out 5s a persistent record throughout a decade... ;) ... atta monkey... :D
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
Ice sheets that are resting on the seabed are melting from below because of the warming of seawater caused by global warming.

LOL. Everywhere in the oceans it gets colder with increasing depth, yet the ignorant Chicken Littles would believe that the exception to this is in Greenland and the Antarctic where somehow, magically, globull warming reaches down and makes it warmer than the surface. Seriously, how stupid must you Chicken Littles be, especially when you have this.
http://www.atlaso...island-2
http://www.greenl...springs/
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
I don't know why I'm responding to the onions dumbass, but I'll regret it later.
Below it is a saltier layer of warmer ocean water. This layer is currently more than more than 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) warmer than the surface layer
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2016
The fact that ocean water gets colder with depth in no way excludes an overall warming.

Seriously, were you born this stupid or dropped as a baby?
Now go play with your wife's underwear.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
stupid go along really well in you

Yep. That's what your wife was thinking, when she corrected the mistake of marrying you, by finding "sperm donors" for "your" children and avoided them being some unfortunate retards.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
You of course provide no support for questioning that information.

Here I was thinking that you were just "special" when you are actually a special kind of tard.
Geothermal activity capable of creating hot springs for people to bathe in couldn't possibly be heating up the ocean from below, right?
http://www.atlaso...island-2
http://www.greenl...springs/
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2016
ello
- sunray
ello to you too
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 25, 2016
o_s............you're losing most of the AGW Commentary crowd here because you are trying to have civil discussions about science.

When the AGW Enthusiasts even go so far as to believe that CO² emissions from tailpipes of cars can cause volcanic activity (earthquakes too?) extending far beneath the depths of Earth's crust, then you know how shallow are the depths of their education in science which is why they resort to the usual name calling routines.

I don't have anymore time for this, but those of us who are professionals in the fields of math based science know that over time the evidence will continue mounting & speaking for itself.

- Benni
Welcome back. I took your place for awhile, and did manage to find some verifiable evidences of geothermal activity in several hotspots that rival and supplant anything caused by the alleged AGW.
What we are seeing in volcanic activity is perfectly natural. Nature in all its glory. AGW pales in comparison.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 25, 2016
antigoracle
you seem full of obsessions, besides being evil and stupid.
apply yourself to growing turnips.
there is a field in which you might excel.
you would work in the gutter with manure, where you belong.
- Pissypants1
LOL that is toooo funny, Pissypants. You fight like a girl...or maybe a pretend-girl. Are you one of those boyz who sued for the right to use the ladies' locker room and toilets? Got your dingaling cut off yet? You're disgusting. It is YOU who are evil and stupid. WHY do you even comment in this website when most of what you say is dumb rhetoric just like your god, Otto who also doesn't belong commenting in this Phys.org with his dumb rhetoric. Go away, Pissypants...and don't come back.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (23) Apr 25, 2016
obama_socks claims
..did manage to find some verifiable evidences of geothermal activity in several hotspots that rival and supplant anything caused by the alleged AGW
Ok, I've asked Benni very often to explain why he ignores radiative transfer & wonder why bulk climate change deniers dismiss radiative transfer ? Its proven & never refuted for >100 yrs, its basic Physics ?

Why do you think its ignored obama_socks ?

Also I notice vast bulk of deniers just cannot understand "Rate of Change" in respect of average geological activity whilst CO2 has risen & continues to rise.

Its been well known in the scientific community that when all geological sources of thermal flow are integrated they are far less than radiative forcing of > 1.5Watts /m^2 globally

obama_socks claims
AGW pales in comparison
As you claim in your posting, so where are these clear "verifiable evidences" please ?

Just to let you know blogs are not credible, one needs integrated data...
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
WHO is gonna support a stance by dancing with HeloMenelo? This I gots ta see. LOL


The dancing is done by you, and the ridiculing by the clever people, monkey can't see that my ratings have been sound throughout the years, can't say the same for him though with his 1 out 5s a persistent record throughout a decade... ;) ... atta monkey... :D
- goodbye Menelo
Dancing? What dancing? Only dancing I wold do is on top of your head, fool. Your wild imagination is going into overdrive. You need to see a shrink ASAP.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 25, 2016
@MikeMassen
The first link is for a Physorg article dated 2007. Title is "Earth's heat adds to climate change to melt Greenland ice"
They have found at least one "hotspot" in the northeast corner of Greenland -- just below a site where an ice stream was recently discovered.

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


"They have found at least one "hotspot" in the northeast corner of Greenland -- just below a site where an ice stream was recently discovered.
The researchers don't yet know how warm the hotspot is. But if it is warm enough to melt the ice above it even a little, it could be lubricating the base of the ice sheet and enabling the ice to slide more rapidly out to sea.

Nine years have passed since the article came out, but the hotspot(s) are still going strong, melting the ice and raising sea levels little by little. Doubtful that any human had anything to do with volcanic activity. But you never know.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2016

@MikeMassen
The second link is more recent…2016. In essence, it explains that at the end of the last ice age, the melting and sliding of ice sheets caused "erosion" that resulted in the lithosphere becoming thinner in places, which led to a great increase in volcanic activity, with the heat of magma causing further melting of ice sheets and an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels FROM volcanos.

http://hailscienc...erosion/

The article includes the obligatory AGW, of course. But the fact remains that the rise in atmospheric CO2 from deep underground and other GHG are always accompanied by an increase in volcanic activity. This is cyclical and is Nature's way of "shrugging" and recirculating Earth's life's blood - magma and other matter. Humans on Earth are like fleas/lice on a dog. The dog tries to shake them off but the fleas are hard to get rid of.
:)
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
sox - still no links that support the claim that the ice sheets are melting from the bottom up, and NOT the top down. As Mike points out - geothermal activity has been studied for decades - what you have to do is show how the ice sheets are NOT melting from above - as is asserted by today's article - and much other research data.
glaciers that flow into the ocean melt not only from above, as they are warmed by sun and air, but from below, as they are warmed by water.
- onions
Hold on there. When did I ever say that the top surface of ice doesn't melt under the sun? SHOW me the link where I have stated that.
Sunlight is capable of melting ice, especially in Summer. However, the partial melting of the surface of an ice sheet will not result in that ice sheet flowing out on its way to the sea. That can only happen when the bottom of the ice sheet has melted FROM the heatMAGMA so that it slides easy with much less friction. But it will still erode the land
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
(con'td)
It will still erode the land on which the ice sheet is spread over. The surface of the ice sheet is bound to have SOME melting. But when the heat from below is great enough, it will melt up to the surface also, depending on the thickness or depth of the ice sheet. In some areas, the ice sheet is very thin...thin enough so that the "heat transfer" from volcanic activity (that I believe Mike was referring to), will warm enough of the ice above so that a section of the ice sheet will slowly collapse and become a lake or pond, possibly. When the weight of the ice above the volcano decreases as a result of the melting, it could result in a much greater volume of magma coming up from the depths of the mantle where the magma chamber is located. This may be happening now.
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2016
@obama_socks says;
That can only happen when the bottom of the ice sheet has melted FROM the heatMAGMA so that it slides easy with much less friction.

heatMAGMA is a fantasy. That is just make believe like unicorns and ferries.

Why don't you try believing something more plausible like global warming. It's simpler to explain, there are 10s of thousands of papers describing it's cause and effects in minute detail, and yet some nimrods like to make up heatMAGMA. Lol.

And you morons like @obama_socks complain about AGWites??? (WHAT EVER THAT IS). Please give us a break. Oh and I might was well stick you with a political label; Are you not one of the rightwing anti-environmental oil, coal, Koch brother loving republican spin wig conservatives in favor of watching mankind inslaved in toxic waste land of death?

obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (17) Apr 26, 2016
@obama_socks says;
That can only happen when the bottom of the ice sheet has melted FROM the heatMAGMA so that it slides easy with much less friction.

heatMAGMA is a fantasy. That is just make believe like unicorns and ferries.

Why don't you try believing something more plausible like global warming. It's simpler to explain, there are 10s of thousands of papers describing it's cause and effects in minute detail, and yet some nimrods like to make up heatMAGMA. Lol.

And you morons like @obama_socks complain about AGWites??? (WHAT EVER THAT IS). Please give us a break. Oh and I might was well stick you with a political label; Are you not one of the rightwing anti-environmental oil, coal, Koch brother loving republican spin wig conservatives in favor of watching mankind inslaved in toxic waste land of death?

- how hot
"heatMAGMA" was a typo. I was down to only 2 characters and had to get rid of a few letters. I meant to say, "the heat FROM magma
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 26, 2016
(cont'd)
@howhot
The heat from the magma coming up to the surface of the lithosphere and out through fissures or through a volcanic cone IS responsible for the ice sheet melting in the northeastern region of Greenland. The heat from the magma ALSO heats the ocean water into which the ice sheet flows as it slides on the meltwater that was formerly ice that had melted into water BECAUSE of the heat from the magma. That is plain as day.
The same thing is happening in western Antarctica. Mother Nature at her best. In the meantime, the RING OF FIRE is becoming more and more active with earthquakes. About 40 earthquakes world-wide since the start of 2016. Maybe Mother Nature is angry b/c of the alleged underground nuclear tests that North Korea has been conducting. I don't know what the cause for the earthquakes or who's to blame. I know one thing for certain: Earthquakes, melting ice sheets and magma hotspots are NOT caused by AGW.
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 26, 2016
That is just make believe like unicorns and ferries.
- howhot2

Ferries you say? Do they operate on regular, frequent return services? Is that like the Staten Island ferries? Do they cross Lake Michigan to get to Wisconsin? Have you also heard of the one-eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater?
Hmmmm? Did you say that you're a "scientist"?

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Apr 26, 2016
When did I ever say that the top surface of ice doesn't melt under the sun?
well, you said, and i'll quote
I'm gonna stand in for Benni until he gets back
so, by definition, you are taking his arguments as reliable and legit, which happen to include
that is until a few weeks ago when the scientific data came out proving that Greenland Ice Melt was occurring from the "bottom up", and not "top down"
now, the AGW theory doesn't say there is no geological activity
nor does it state that Greenland can only melt from the "top down" per benji's claims...
in fact, i've never seen a single study that stated there was no geological melting per benji's claims
it's a studied effect (although google scholar only came up with About 8,740 results (0.07 sec) concerning it...)

therefore, the evidence is all against benji
and
it is *proven* that you are in agreement with benji's claims by your own admission and insistence on taking up his argument
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 26, 2016
When did I ever say that the top surface of ice doesn't melt under the sun?
well, you said, and i'll quote
I'm gonna stand in for Benni until he gets back
so, by definition, you are taking his arguments as reliable and legit, which happen to include
that is until a few weeks ago when the scientific data came out proving that Greenland Ice Melt was occurring from the "bottom up", and not "top down"
now, the AGW theory doesn't say there is no geological activity
nor does it state that Greenland can only melt from the "top down" per benji's claims...
i've never seen a single study that stated there was no geological melting per benji's claims it's a studied effect (although google scholar only came up with About 8,740 results (0.07 sec) concerning it...)therefore, the evidence is all against benji
and it is *proven* that you are in agreement with benji's claims by your own admission and insistence on taking up his argument
- StumpRump
And?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (18) Apr 26, 2016
Magma, man-made CO2, sunspots, whatever...
The planet is heating, ice is melting - and not a lot anyone can do in the short term except adapt and move on.
Personally, I think it's both combinatory and complementary activities as cause...

obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (19) Apr 26, 2016
Magma, man-made CO2, sunspots, whatever...
The planet is heating, ice is melting - and not a lot anyone can do in the short term except adapt and move on.
Personally, I think it's both combinatory and complementary activities as cause...

WG
Mother Nature's just trying to get rid of her fleas. Eugenics will do the rest.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2016
Oh kiss my ass @obama_socks. Your full of the BS man. (And I mean really full of it). Magma heat melting Greenland?.... Don't blow your peas (at minimum, don't have a mouth full of peas when you read Obama_socks posts or there are peas everywhere man).

obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (20) Apr 26, 2016
@WG
I would call her "Gaia" as the New Agers do...but she has been doing her own thing for BILLIONS of years since her creation. She was created and set into the correct orbit for a good reason - but I won't go into that now. What humans have been doing to her is/was unspeakable in its depravity. She is now flexing her "muscles", and humans will scatter like cockroaches to try to avoid her wrath.
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2016
@WG
I would call her "Gaia" as the New Agers do...but she has been doing her own thing for BILLIONS of years since her creation. She was created and set into the correct orbit for a good reason - but I won't go into that now. What humans have been doing to her is/was unspeakable in its depravity. She is now flexing her "muscles", and humans will scatter like cockroaches to try to avoid her wrath.

That is pretty rich coming from a guy that believes in ferries, unicorns and heatMagma. Just admit it @OS, your a BOZO!
howhot2
4.9 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2016
You know the bad part about the Greenland ice melt is what is at the bottom of all of that ice; Methane. As the permafrost of Russia thaws, huge pockets of methane are being released. Similar with Greenland.

Everyone knows methane is a very potent green house gas. Methane is typically described as 30 times (30X) more potent than CO2 in trapping solar heat, so it can be devastating as a greenhouse gas. It lasts about 12 years. As the planet heats from greenhouse warming caused by the combustion of fossil fuels, methane frozen for 1000's of years releases compounding global warming. The feed back from methane cause more air conditioners to go on, causing more demand for fuel combustion. So far the result is a about a 2.75F rise in global average temps since 1980. IPCC is trying to hold temp rise to 2C global. Let us hope, but 4-5C is looking more likely.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (25) Apr 26, 2016
obama_socks says
..Physorg article dated 2007. Title is "Earth's heat adds to climate change to melt Greenland ice"
Great simple arithmetic !

Known >100yrs, geothermal adds to Earth's heat balance, how much (call it 'g')
1. https://en.wikipe...ki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget]https://en.wikipe...t_budget[/url]

Greenhouse gas radiative forcing, how much (call it 'r')
2. https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Over Earth
3. https://en.wikipe...ki/Earth

obama_socks claimed
..verifiable evidences of geothermal activity in several hotspots that rival and supplant anything caused by the alleged AGW
Failed to state it again :-(

To make your case, *need* to show g >> r (g much greater than r)

Won't embarrass you with simple arithmetic, so please do calculation yourself & when it fails, please find whats missing (call it 'x')

So you need to show g+x >> r

Can you do " ..verifiable evidences.. " ie Math, what's x & the reference ?

If not you Fail badly :/
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (23) Apr 26, 2016
Physorg munting links again, first should be:-
1. https://en.wikipe...t_budget

Here's the problem you have with Benni & bulk AGW deniers, they refuse to even think on radiative forcing in any depth whatsoever & cannot understand basic core Physics - simplified as

"Atoms/molecules absorb & radiate light across wide frequency range and all the time"

Goes for oxygen, hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide etc, spectra is dependent upon chemical bond dynamics re Quantum Mechanics, a graphical illustration is here
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Unfortunately many AGW deniers are misled by propaganda websites which get $ from clicks so they select manipulative controversial language so you pass it on robotically & they make more $ from you and yu are being used & sadly can't see it, its a bit subtle...

Its just why a keen Physics education is important so you become immune to propaganda !

Start with arithmetic obama_socks
Garrote
3.1 / 5 (30) Apr 26, 2016
Denier/conspiracy nutter drivel is amazing. An article of faith that humans can't have any effect on the weather.......unless it's chemtrails!

They're denying more than AGW. Every bit of our biosphere has been modified by humans, but that tenuous, thin little envelope of gas? We haven't affected that one bit.

At the end of the day it's about respect. As losers they get little, they have no self respect and so they respect nothing else. In the early '60s, when an imminent ice age was predicted, I still was bothered by our using the atmosphere as a toilet for our industrial gases. It's a lack of respect to treat the planet that way. Do they poop in their back yard? But they'd poop in your back yard. Antisciencegorilla can't open his mouth without some puerile insult (usually repeated like a parrot). Lack of respect.

Those that argue with them here remind me of the Python "argument" sketch. Why else would you do it? "No, benni, I wanted the 15 minute arugment!"
Garrote
3.1 / 5 (30) Apr 26, 2016
Apparently they haven't learned that "an argument is not simple nay-saying to every proposition. It's a set of logical inferences supported by data". Cantthink: "No, it isn't".
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (20) Apr 26, 2016
@WG
I would call her "Gaia" as the New Agers do...but she has been doing her own thing for BILLIONS of years since her creation. She was created and set into the correct orbit for a good reason - but I won't go into that now. What humans have been doing to her is/was unspeakable in its depravity. She is now flexing her "muscles", and humans will scatter like cockroaches to try to avoid her wrath.

monkey obama socks aka antigoracle sock loves the smell of cocroaches yes... ? :D
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 26, 2016
obama_socks says
..Physorg article dated 2007. Title is "Earth's heat adds to climate change to melt Greenland ice"
Great simple arithmetic !

Known >100yrs, geothermal adds to Earth's heat balance, how much (call it 'g')
1. http://[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

obama_socks claimed
..verifiable evidences of geothermal activity in several hotspots that rival and supplant anything caused by the alleged AGW
Failed to state it again :-(

/
-
I do algorithms all day at work, designing $^@#&^*@ and #&%$**@_(^ and going over my calculations with my team. I am here to read the articles and relax and maybe comment now and then...not to provide evidence for you so that you can give me a virtual pat on the back. Maybe YOU should cease your driving a gas guzzler, quit using anything made of plastics, stand outside of a church and screech at the people coming out that they are causing GW/CC. Have your parents and other relatives do the same. Be happy.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2016
sox
When did I ever say that the top surface of ice doesn't melt under the sun? SHOW me the link where I have stated that.
It was already made clear - many posts back - that you said you were going to stand in for benni. I was very clear in saying that if you were standing in for benni - you were going to have to take responsibility for benni's assertion. I will cut and paste the whole exchange for you.
As for coming on to a science site - and throwing around terms like "mother nature" - that is beyond stupid. "Oh - 'mother nature' gives us cancer, no point in using science to try to solve that riddle"
cont.
- onions
So I was a "placeholder" for Benni, so what? Doesn't mean that I know what Benni thinks. Do I also sleep with his wife? LMAO
I know virtually nothing about Benni, antiG or bschott, and they don't know me either. I don't take responsibility for anyone else's assertion, only my own. You don't like that, too bad.
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2016
I thought I had made it clear enough when I posted this in this thread:

"Sunlight is capable of melting ice, especially in Summer. However, the partial melting of the surface of an ice sheet will not result in that ice sheet flowing out on its way to the sea. That can only happen when the bottom of the ice sheet has melted FROM the heat (of the)MAGMA so that it slides easy with much less friction. But it will still erode the land..."

"It will still erode the land on which the ice sheet is spread over. The surface of the ice sheet is bound to have SOME melting. But when the heat from below is great enough, it will melt up to the surface also, depending on the thickness or depth of the ice sheet. In some areas, the ice sheet is very thin...thin enough so that the "heat transfer" from volcanic activity will warm enough of the ice above so that a section of the ice sheet will slowly collapse and (..)
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (20) Apr 27, 2016
obama_socks (OS) claims 25 Apr 16
...did manage to find some verifiable evidences of geothermal activity in several hotspots that rival and supplant anything caused by the alleged AGW
Failed to prove his case even when supplied links, what's g & r please ?

Challenged on simple math OS says
..not to provide evidence..
Stupid contradiction, then asserts
I don't take responsibility for anyone else's assertion, only my own
Contradiction, ie NO responsibility, all unsupportable claims, then OS stupidly asserts
..I do algorithms all day ..
Really ? But, can't do simple Math for which I even offer source links ?

OS Fails to support any claims !

Observation & logic fully demonstrates we cannot ever trust anything obama_socks claims !

OS says
... and maybe comment ..
Responsibility to:-

a. not make false claims
b. not mislead the naive & uneducated
c. not appear as an unintelligent liar

Is OS caught, what's g & r please ?
Caliban
2.9 / 5 (19) Apr 27, 2016
Hahahahaha...

Way to go, sox! You couldn't even manage, me, cher, to prop up nneBi's insipid twaddle.

You actually bolloxed his insupportable claim even worse than he did.

AGAIN, I REPEAT: you will find --NO WHERE-- any peer reviewed science that will support your claim that geothermal, volcanic or magmatic heat is anything more than a vanishingly small contributor to ice loss, globally.

Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions and their dwell times in the atmosphere are the OVERWHELMING causal factor by many orders of magnitude. MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

This, you would already know, if you bothered to even read the articles published here on physorg --much less the actual research from which they are abstracted-- before vomiting the predigested- antiscience-talking points, ie, "comments" of which you are so fond.

But, don't let me persuade you --by all means, continue to espouse your Agenda of Stupid and pay the inevitable price.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2016
@Cal
Let's say that you and your AGW __ are correct. What do you propose to DO about it...and I'm talking about ALL of you who are believers in what I consider to be only speculation.
What should be the FIRST step to reducing or stopping AGW? And how would you go about accomplishing it?
Take the center stage now and give us your thoughts.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (18) Apr 27, 2016
obama_socks (OS) might be waking up..
Let's say that you and your AGW __ are correct
Rather than not knowing what to believe, be free of propaganda of any 'side' where Physics/Math is key, learn key radiative transfer (RT), it provides basis to understand & ameliorate

OS with his problem
.. ALL of you who are believers in what I consider to be only speculation
NOT about idle belief/speculation (swayed by blog emotion/manipulation), use Scientific Method applied rationally connecting Evidence with Math/Physics & all proven for >120yrs especially so is RT

OS with presence of mind to *ask* instead of facile claims
What should be the FIRST step to reducing or stopping AGW?
Straightforward, reduce greenhouse gases to level ~150yrs ago, increase albedo, overall engineer RT in our favour

OS asks
.. accomplishing it?
Embrace solar power, sequester CO2 Eg concretes, structural plastics (& graphenes), leveraging plant growth etc

OS getting it ?
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (16) Apr 27, 2016
WHO is gonna support a stance by dancing with HeloMenelo? This I gots ta see. LOL

The dancing is done by you, and the ridiculing by the clever people, monkey can't see that my ratings have been sound throughout the years, can't say the same for him though with his 1 out 5s a persistent record throughout a decade... ;) ... atta monkey... :D - goodbye Menelo
Dancing? What dancing? Only dancing I wold do is on top of your head, fool. Your wild imagination is going into overdrive. You need to see a shrink ASAP.
- goodbye Menelo
Dancing? What dancing? Only dancing I wold do is on top of your head


now monkey calm down, have a bannana, no need to dance on my head you're doing a stellar job dancing right here on physorg, it's so much more fun to see you dancing down here don't ya think... ;) :D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (16) Apr 27, 2016
I don't know why I'm responding to the onions dumbass, but I'll regret it later.
Below it is a saltier layer of warmer ocean water. This layer is currently more than more than 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) warmer than the surface layer


After posting another no brainer for a bannana, i'm sure you'll fee much better again :D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (16) Apr 27, 2016
antigoracle
you seem full of obsessions, besides being evil and stupid.
apply yourself to growing turnips.
there is a field in which you might excel.
you would work in the gutter with manure, where you belong.


he likes to learn the art of tree swinging, learned from his sock forestgnome
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2016
Again I ask of Caliban:

@Cal
Let's say that you and your AGW __ are correct. What do you propose to DO about it...and I'm talking about ALL of you who are believers in what I consider to be only speculation.
What should be the FIRST step to reducing or stopping AGW? And how would you go about accomplishing it?
Take the center stage now and give us your thoughts.
And how do you propose to alleviate or prevent the overcrowding of the Earth's populations who are exhaling CO2 even if there was an end to fossil fuel usage?
Euthanasia, perhaps? Starvation of the masses?
What IS your solution to your claims of GW/CC?

I will continue to post these (and other) questions until a satisfactory response is given.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2016
Lol, obama_socks (OS) pretending to put me on ignore !

Caliban can u help & add yours to mine here ?

Rather than not knowing what to believe OS, be free of propaganda of any 'side' where Physics/Math is key, learn key radiative transfer (RT), it provides basis to understand & ameliorate

OS with his problem
.. ALL of you who are believers in what I consider to be only speculation
NOT about idle belief/speculation (swayed by blog emotion/manipulation), use Scientific Method applied rationally connecting Evidence with Math/Physics & all proven for >120yrs especially so is RT

OS with presence of mind to *ask* instead of facile claims
What should be the FIRST step to reducing or stopping AGW?
Straightforward, reduce greenhouse gases to level ~150yrs ago, increase albedo, overall engineer RT in our favour

OS asks
.. accomplishing it?
Embrace solar power, sequester CO2 Eg concretes, structural plastics (& graphenes), leveraging plant growth etc

Caliban
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2016
Again I ask of Caliban:

@Cal
Let's say that you and your AGW __ are correct. What do you propose to DO about it...and I'm talking about ALL of you who are believers in what I consider to be only speculation.
What should be the FIRST step to reducing or stopping AGW? And how would you go about accomplishing it?


OK, sox,

First step would be to eliminate ALL fossil fuel subsidies, direct and indirect(as in tax loopholes, shelters, shareholder dividends) and spend that money deploying grid-scale alternatively produced electricity along with ramped up development and replacement of fossil powered vehicles with alternatively powered replacements. If you didn't already know, direct and indirect subsidies represent trillions of USD, globally, on an annual basis.

The rest of your question is a mere strawman, entirely lacking in merit and unworthy of a response.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 28, 2016
Thanks Caliban,
Good points, I tend to shy away from politics as its so disjointed & issue of subsidies is so often muddied but, with you wholeheartedly :-)

I'd add a proper cost on pollution would be helpful, most controversial but, at least should cover blatant issues such as: soot, air-born radiation (especially from coal), spills, penalties re contract exclusions etc.

Unfortunately the 19th based commercial lobby cries foul of so called (direct) carbon taxes but, I'm sure there is a more subtle way that doesn't have bulk of revenue pass through governments but, instead more as associative incentives as in re-allocating fossil-fuel subsidies by industry groups towards (at least) carbon neutral power sources

obama_socks challenges Scientists, Engineers & seekers of truth
I will continue to post these (and other) questions until a satisfactory response..
This assumes obama_socks can comprehend meaning of "satisfactory" ie Basic Physics & can learn !
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Apr 28, 2016
greenonions retorts
Are you surprised that you got a response? That someone had actually thought about the subject?
Spot on great points :-)

obama_socks (S) ran back to http://phys.org/n...ate.html

where I continueto challenge him, what fun :-)

greenonions added links
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/27/international-solar-alliance-mobilise-1-trillion-solar-investment
& http://cleantechn...ars-2020
greenonions affirmed
We own and put most of our miles on a Leaf. Super insulated the house (utility bills around $70 a month - even with the Leaf). Starting a business - growing and selling veggies in the back yard. What are you up to in your life.
OS can't reply, too embarrassed, caught on simple arithmetic he calls 'algorithms', LoL !

IOW: Issue of simple algebra is now an 'algorithm' & Still not covered, a bogus idle claim :/

So much for OS' "verifiable evidences" !

:P
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2016
I sent a contact form to PO to ban a certain sack of manure.
Let's see if any decency is left on PO.

The sack of shite preaching decency.
corncobbob
3.4 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2016
I sent a contact form to PO to ban a certain sack of manure.
Let's see if any decency is left on PO.
I dont think there is except for a few posters mr phys1 becuase from what I can see there aint much science talk at all excepting from certain posters like you and DaSchnieb and Captain stumpy and runrig and mike massen and maggnus and thermodynamics (i mite have spelled somme of those wrong and sorry but i suc at typing) I was reading other trhreads and I noticed that this place needs some moderators or something. it is too bad that all you science-y posting people cant get along and uprate each other and downrate or report or do something about the bad folk like gkam and antigorical and shootist and those antiscience folk
obama_socks
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2016
I sent a contact form to PO to ban a certain sack of manure.
Let's see if any decency is left on PO.
I dont think there is except for a few posters mr phys1 becuase from what I can see there aint much science talk at all excepting from certain posters like you and DaSchnieb and Captain stumpy and runrig and mike massen and maggnus and thermodynamics (i mite have spelled somme of those wrong and sorry but i suc at typing) I was reading other trhreads and I noticed that this place needs some moderators or something. it is too bad that all you science-y posting people cant get along and uprate each other and downrate or report or do something about the bad folk like gkam and antigorical and shootist and those antiscience folk


Nice new sock puppet you created, Otto. Pretending to be an illiterate redneck now, are you?
And you just created it on April 28th. Why, that's yesterday, isn't it. LMAO HOOYI as your other sock puppet Uncle Ira would say.
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2016
@Obama_socks says; "Nice new sock". Yeal really. I am protected by the power of stain-reistant Scotchguard! So your sock thing isn't going to stick on me. However you butty, @antigoracle tossed this little Cruz like grenade at us; "The sack of shite preaching decency.". YOW! All life is a blur of Republicans and meat. It'd ridiculous. Eat a 85/15 grass fed burger while watching a CRUZ infomercial! Yikes man!

Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2016
obama_socks with his primary focus - votes and idiocy on a Science site
Nice new sock puppet you created, Otto. Pretending to be an illiterate redneck now, are you?
And you just created it on April 28th. Why, that's yesterday, isn't it. LMAO HOOYI as your other sock puppet Uncle Ira would say.
Why don't you take responsibility for false claims ?

You claimed you "take responsibility", you clearly don't, or show where you do ?

Why can't you do the simple arithmetic re my post of April 26, 2016 ?

What "algorithms" you claimed to do at work - yet not use Matlab or Labview even Excel ?

Why make unsupportable claims, not take responsibility and instead focus on inanities ?

What message are you leaving here for those keen on Science at a higher level than mere claim ?

Do you have any idea how misleading and destructive idle uneducated claims are ?

Do you know anything at all of radiative transfer have you studied *any* Physics at all ?

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.