• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greenland Soars to its Highest Temperature Ever Recorded, almost 80° F.

Hardly. Your post was nonsense, and you can't show otherwise.
DUH... Nice try Jacko!
the Burden is on YOU to show my post was "complete nonsense" and YOU FAILED multiple Times.
You DISHONESTLY/Comically Tried deflecting several times but Never could touch it.
Now this Goofy/LOST attempt to shift the Burden.

Again
Jack Hays said:
They are having snow melting every year, and increasingly quickly because of warming. AGW warming and in this case aided by AGW soot.
Drip, Drip.
And I believe Greenland alone would raise seal level 8 feet [if] it melted completely.
Pretty Catastrophic.
Complete nonsense. :lol::roll:

YOU FAILED Multiple Times.
 
Last edited:
DUH... Nice try Jacko!
the Burden is on YOU to show my post was "complete nonsense" and YOU FAILED multiple Times.
You DISHONESTLY/Comically Tried deflecting several times but Never could touch it.
Now this Goofy/LOST attempt to shift the Burden.

Again

STILL WAITING Jack
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Sorry. I thought you would read before posting.:lamo

"Prior to Dahl-Jensen’s study, it was generally accepted that the vast majority of this rise came from the loss of Greenland’s ice, but now she cautiously writes that:

Although the documentation of ice thickness at one location on the Greenland ice sheet cannot constrain the overall ice-sheet changes during the last interglacial period, the [Eemian core] data can only be reconciled with Greenland ice-sheet simulations that point to a modest contribution (2 m) to the observed 4-8 m Eemian sea level high stand…These findings strongly imply that Antarctica must have contributed significantly to the Eemian sea level rise.
Whew! Thus does one revolutionary paper shoot pretty much the entire global warming sea-level catastrophe—the one worth being concerned about—through the heart. Antarctica is so cold that it is projected to gain ice in the coming century, as slightly increased precipitation—which may have recently been detected—falls as more snow, which compacts into more ice."

In other words, your post was nonsense.:mrgreen:
 
Sorry. I thought you would read before posting.:lamo
"Prior to Dahl-Jensen’s study, it was generally accepted that the vast majority of this rise came from the loss of Greenland’s ice, but now she cautiously writes that:

Although the documentation of ice thickness at one location on the Greenland ice sheet cannot constrain the overall ice-sheet changes during the last interglacial period, the [Eemian core] data can only be reconciled with Greenland ice-sheet simulations that point to a modest contribution (2 m) to the observed 4-8 m Eemian sea level high stand…These findings strongly imply that Antarctica must have contributed significantly to the Eemian sea level rise.
Whew! Thus does one revolutionary paper shoot pretty much the entire global warming sea-level catastrophe—the one worth being concerned about—through the heart. Antarctica is so cold that it is projected to gain ice in the coming century, as slightly increased precipitation—which may have recently been detected—falls as more snow, which compacts into more ice."

In other words, your post was nonsense.:mrgreen:
Yes, again, I saw your Dishonest/Deflective Link Dump on snowfall in the Antarctic !?%^#$^%

How, SPECIFICALLY, does this Make Any of my Claims on Greenland, made in the post in question into "complete nonsense".
Please again, be specific citing which of my words/phrases, because we both/ALL know you Cannot.

mbig that Jack can't touch with his Deflective Link Dumps said:
They are having snow melting every year, and increasingly quickly because of warming. AGW warming and in this case aided by AGW soot.
Drip, Drip.
And I believe Greenland alone would raise seal level 8 feet [if] it melted completely.
Pretty Catastrophic.
Jack continues to FAIL and try and Dishonestly cover up by posting Opinion links to... who knows.


EDIT to the Below Degraded from the already Abysmal/Dishonest Deflective posts of Jack Hays.
He could NOT address, much less refute/turn-into-"complete-nonsense" ANY of my statements. NOT one.
Jack LIED Continuously.
and now we let the poor fellow Last-word away/bay into the night.
 
Last edited:
Yes, again, I saw your Dishonest/Deflective Link Dump.

How, SPECIFICALLY, does this Make Any of my Claims made in the post in question into "complete nonsense".
Please again, be specific because we both/ALL know you Cannot.


Jack continues to FAIL.

Because, and I'll type slowly here, Greenland's ice doesn't matter.
 
Yes, again, I saw your Dishonest/Deflective Link Dump.

How, SPECIFICALLY, does this Make Any of my Claims made in the post in question into "complete nonsense".
Please again, be specific because we both/ALL know you Cannot.


Jack continues to FAIL.

Because, and I'll type slowly here, Greenland's ice doesn't matter.:mrgreen:
 
I have to agree that soot is increasing ice melt. I wouldn't attempt to quantify by how much though. It would still take one trememdous amount of energy to melt that much ice.

For those of you suggesting that the ice flow increasing is proof the ice is melting faster... I suggest you don't use that slippery slope (pun intended.) Think of glacier flow like a river flow. The more it rains, the faster a river flows. Glaciers do this too, however, it's a process with more lag than rivers. It takes time to build the momentum for such large masses, and time to slow when the precipitation slows or stops. Remember, glaciers wouldn't flow without gravity.

Anyone remember the thread that had data showing the sea level dropping? This could be a period where one or more ice sheet increased in volume, more than the ice they released or had melt.

I would also like you warmers to consider this. Though we have seen for at least three decades now, a net sea level rise from more ice melting than forming, that doesn't mean atmospheric heat and/or the minor increased radiative downforcing can cause any significant of it to melt. If the atmosphere warms enough to melt all this ice, we were already way past caring. The temperatures required would have already made life on earth, likely extinct.
 
Yes, again, I saw your Dishonest/Deflective Link Dump on snowfall in the Antarctic !?%^#$^%

How, SPECIFICALLY, does this Make Any of my Claims on Greenland, made in the post in question into "complete nonsense".
Please again, be specific citing which of my words/phrases, because we both/ALL know you Cannot.


Jack continues to FAIL and try and Dishonestly cover up by posting Opinion links to... who knows.


EDIT to the Below Degraded from the already Abysmal/Dishonest Deflective posts of Jack Hays.
He could NOT address, much less refute/turn-into-"complete-nonsense" ANY of my statements. NOT one.
Jack LIED Continuously.
and now we let the poor fellow Last-word away/bay into the night.

To quote you: Put up or shut up.:waiting:
 
mbig and Lord of Planar Agrees it is NOT "complete nonsense" said:
They are having snow melting every year, and increasingly quickly because of warming. AGW warming and in this case aided by AGW Soot.
Drip, Drip.
And I believe Greenland alone would raise seal level 8 feet [if] it melted completely.
Pretty Catastrophic.
I have to agree that Soot is increasing ice melt. I wouldn't attempt to quantify by how much though. It would still take one trememdous amount of energy to melt that much ice.
And thus we even have a Warming denier AGREEING with at least one count of my post: That AGW Soot Increase the melting.
And there goes the last chance (not there ever was one) of Jack Hays' LIE that my post was "complete nonsense".


How embarrassing for Jack Hays.
I wonder if LoP realizes he dealt the final blow (Right Cross!) to Jack's LYING contention.

Planar said:
.......
I would also like you warmers to consider this. Though we have seen for at least three decades now, a net sea level Rise from more ice melting than forming,[ that doesn't mean atmospheric heat and/or the minor increased radiative downforcing can cause any significant of it to melt. If the atmosphere warms enough to melt all this ice, we were already way past caring. The temperatures required would have already made life on earth, likely extinct.
I disagree and your objection noted. And I believe we're at well more than 3 decades.
Just it's a Record Hot 80 degrees there now and well... bad timing at least.



EDIT to the Immediately Below Degraded from the already Abysmal/Dishonest Deflective posts of Jack Hays.
Jack continues to FAIL and try and Dishonestly cover up by posting Opinion links to... who knows: Antarctic snowfall this week!
He could NOT address, much less refute/turn-into-"complete-nonsense" ANY of my statements. NOT one.
Jack LIED Continuously.
and now we let the poor defeated/humiliated fellow Last-Last-Last-word away/bay into the night.
 
Last edited:
Sorry. I thought you would read before posting.:lamo

"Prior to Dahl-Jensen’s study, it was generally accepted that the vast majority of this rise came from the loss of Greenland’s ice, but now she cautiously writes that:

Although the documentation of ice thickness at one location on the Greenland ice sheet cannot constrain the overall ice-sheet changes during the last interglacial period, the [Eemian core] data can only be reconciled with Greenland ice-sheet simulations that point to a modest contribution (2 m) to the observed 4-8 m Eemian sea level high stand…These findings strongly imply that Antarctica must have contributed significantly to the Eemian sea level rise.​
Whew! Thus does one revolutionary paper shoot pretty much the entire global warming sea-level catastrophe—the one worth being concerned about—through the heart. Antarctica is so cold that it is projected to gain ice in the coming century, as slightly increased precipitation—which may have recently been detected—falls as more snow, which compacts into more ice."

In other words, your post was nonsense.:mrgreen:
 
And thus we even have a Warming denier AGREEING with at least one count of my post: That AGW Soot Increase the melting.
And there goes the last chance (not there ever was one) of Jack Hays' LIE that my post was "complete nonsense".

How embarrassing for JH.
I wonder if LoP realizes he dealt the final blow to Jack's LYING contention.

I disagree but objection noted.
Just it's a Record Hot 80 degrees there now and well... bad timing at least.

The thing is, any place where there is normally ice and snow cover (reflective cover), soot melts it faster exposing the surface below it (heat absorbing). This allows for a greater effect of solar warming. On snow and ice covered surfaces, there is almost always a small cooling caused by sublimation. Once there is no frozen moisture cover, all bets are off as to how much the sun can heat basalt, soil, water, etc.

If you notice, I am clearly not in a any "denier" catagory. When people ask what my agenda is, it is the truth. No matter where the truth leads.

My post isn't necessarily a problem for Jack. I'm not sure that he disagree with soot as much as he's disagree with what you guys are saying, and isn't clarifying the specific nuances. I try not to be too general, because there are so many variables at play.

I'm glad that you are one of the few that agree soot is a problem.
 
The thing is, any place where there is normally ice and snow cover (reflective cover), soot melts it faster exposing the surface below it (heat absorbing). This allows for a greater effect of solar warming. On snow and ice covered surfaces, there is almost always a small cooling caused by sublimation. Once there is no frozen moisture cover, all bets are off as to how much the sun can heat basalt, soil, water, etc.

If you notice, I am clearly not in a any "denier" catagory. When people ask what my agenda is, it is the truth. No matter where the truth leads.

My post isn't necessarily a problem for Jack. I'm not sure that he disagree with soot as much as he's disagree with what you guys are saying, and isn't clarifying the specific nuances. I try not to be too general, because there are so many variables at play.

I'm glad that you are one of the few that agree soot is a problem.

Bingo.
 
The Greenlanders are probably loving it.
 
The thing is, any place where there is normally ice and snow cover (reflective cover), soot melts it faster exposing the surface below it (heat absorbing). This allows for a greater effect of solar warming. On snow and ice covered surfaces, there is almost always a small cooling caused by sublimation. Once there is no frozen moisture cover, all bets are off as to how much the sun can heat basalt, soil, water, etc.
That was My point.
Thanks. In fact I don't even remember anyone else even bringing up Soot as a contributing ice-melt factor here previously, tho it may have been done.
So to call the post, including that Factor, and possibly even an original/first-time use here, "complete nonsense" is wrong and a ridiculous attempt at insult.

Lord of Planar said:
If you notice, I am clearly not in a any "denier" category. When people ask what my agenda is, it is the truth. No matter where the truth leads.
I, and most everyone else here would say, at the very least, you've been Devil's Advocate. And I do mean at the very least.

Lord of Planar said:
My post isn't necessarily a problem for Jack. I'm not sure that he disagree with soot as much as he's disagree with what you guys are saying, and isn't clarifying the specific nuances. I try not to be too general, because there are so many variables at play.

I'm glad that you are one of the few that agree soot is a problem.
Um.
You Disagreed strongly with Jack.
Our debate wasn't so much about warming/AGW or not.
Our main issue was His absurd calling of my post, Including the Soot factor You agreed with, "complete nonsense".

So when you acknowledged even that alone, you Destroyed Jack's baseLess insult of my post As Well As, subsequent correction I made of how much sea Level WOULD rise IF Greenland alone melted.
Which Also was ACCURATE, not "nonsense'.
So Jack was Out of line and utterly wrong and Not Just on "soot".
I assume you don't take issue with a simple Ice Volume calculation range either. (20'-23' rise If melted)

I wager he just knee-Jerk conservative-partisanly responded with a blanket insult that is so common on this board.
I always find it interesting (if NOT rock solid) when someone has 325 posts in 'Environment and Climate' and ZERO posts in 'Science and Technology'.
One sees, especially on the Warming Denial side, these posters are basically Up-and-Down Conservatives.
No so with me, who ie, can take Jack's side, indeed provide the Science Meat FOR HIM in his own UnPC/Conservative.... currently ongoing 'IQ' (and race) string.. while he is Forced to backpedal. (many links/documentation available)
So it's not only wrong/Partisan-Hackery but rather ironic for him to call My post "complete nonsense".
 
Last edited:
That was My point.
Thanks. In fact I don't even remember anyone else even bringing up Soot as a contributing ice-melt factor here previously, tho it may have been done.
So to call the post, including that Factor, and possibly even an original/first-time use here, "complete nonsense" is wrong and a ridiculous attempt at insult.

I, and most everyone else here would say, at the very least, you've been Devil's Advocate. And I do mean at the very least.

Um.
You Disagreed strongly with Jack.
Our debate wasn't so much about warming/AGW or not.
Our main issue was His absurd calling of my post, Including the Soot factor You agreed with, "complete nonsense".

So when you acknowledged even that alone, you Destroyed Jack's baseLess insult of my post As Well As, subsequent correction I made of how much sea Level WOULD rise IF Greenland alone melted.
Which Also was ACCURATE, not "nonsense'.
So Jack was Out of line and utterly wrong and Not Just on "soot".
I assume you don't take issue with a simple Ice Volume calculation range either. (20'-23' rise If melted)

I wager he just knee-Jerk conservative-partisanly responded with a blanket insult that is so common on this board.
I always find it interesting (if NOT rock solid) when someone has 325 posts in 'Environment and Climate' and ZERO posts in 'Science and Technology'.
One sees, especially on the Warming Denial side, these posters are basically Up-and-Down Conservatives.
No so with me, who ie, can take Jack's side, indeed provide the Science Meat FOR HIM in his own UnPC/Conservative.... currently ongoing 'IQ' (and race) string.. while he is Forced to backpedal. (many links/documentation available)
So it's not only wrong/Partisan-Hackery but rather ironic for him to call My post "complete nonsense".


"Prior to Dahl-Jensen’s study, it was generally accepted that the vast majority of this rise came from the loss of Greenland’s ice, but now she cautiously writes that:

Although the documentation of ice thickness at one location on the Greenland ice sheet cannot constrain the overall ice-sheet changes during the last interglacial period, the [Eemian core] data can only be reconciled with Greenland ice-sheet simulations that point to a modest contribution (2 m) to the observed 4-8 m Eemian sea level high stand…These findings strongly imply that Antarctica must have contributed significantly to the Eemian sea level rise.​
Whew! Thus does one revolutionary paper shoot pretty much the entire global warming sea-level catastrophe—the one worth being concerned about—through the heart. Antarctica is so cold that it is projected to gain ice in the coming century, as slightly increased precipitation—which may have recently been detected—falls as more snow, which compacts into more ice."

In other words, your post was nonsense.:mrgreen:
 
[h=2]Sea Ice News Volume 4 number 4 – The Maslowski Countdown to an ‘ice-free Arctic’ begins[/h] Posted on August 18, 2013 by Anthony Watts
A grand experiment is being conducted in the Arctic this year that may not only falsify a prediction made in 2007, but may also further distance a connection between Arctic air temperature and sea ice decline.
You may have noticed the countdown widget at the top of the right sidebar. I’ve been waiting for this event all summer, and now that we are just over a month away from the Autumnal Equinox at September 22, at 20:44 UTC., (4:44PM EDT) signifying the end of summer in the Northern Hemisphere, this seemed like a good time to start the countdown. If there is still significant ice (1 million square kilometers or more as defined by Zwally, see below) in place then, we can consider that this claim by Maslowski in 2007 to be falsified:

Source: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
What is most interesting though, is that Arctic temperatures seem to be in early decline, ahead of schedule by about 30 days compared to last year’s record melt:
Continue reading →:peace
 
Greenland IS losing Ice and So is the Arctic in trend overall.
I believe 2012 was the Least Ice ever in the latter.
The Real Trend continues.

Scientists call it "going down the Up Escalator."
Denialists look at/cite Statistically-Too-Short, flat-to-down trends in what IS actually a much more stable and unmistakable medium and long term Heating trend.

Still Going Down the Up Escalator
3 February 2012



NCDC_Escalator.gif
 
Last edited:
The thing is, any place where there is normally ice and snow cover (reflective cover), soot melts it faster exposing the surface below it (heat absorbing). This allows for a greater effect of solar warming. On snow and ice covered surfaces, there is almost always a small cooling caused by sublimation. Once there is no frozen moisture cover, all bets are off as to how much the sun can heat basalt, soil, water, etc.
That was My point.
Thanks. In fact I don't even remember anyone else even bringing up 'Soot' as a contributing ice-melt factor here previously, tho it may have been done.
So to call a factor, and possibly even an original/first-time one here, "nonsense" is wrong and a ridiculous attempt at insult.

Lord of Planar said:
If you notice, I am clearly not in a any "denier" category. When people ask what my agenda is, it is the truth. No matter where the truth leads.
I, and most everyone else here would say, at the very least, you've been Devil's Advocate. And I do mean at the very least.

Lord of Planar said:
My post isn't necessarily a problem for Jack. I'm not sure that he disagree with soot as much as he's disagree with what you guys are saying, and isn't clarifying the specific nuances. I try not to be too general, because there are so many variables at play.

I'm glad that you are one of the few that agree soot is a problem.
Um.
You Disagreed strongly with Jack.
Our debate wasn't so much about warming/AGW or not.
Our main issue was His calling of my post, Including the Soot factor You agreed with, "complete nonsense".

So when you acknowledged even that alone, you Destroyed Jack's baseLess insult of my post

As Well there was in a subsequent correction I made of it... how much sea Level WOULD rise IF Greenland alone melted.
Which also was ACCURATE, not "nonsense'.
So Jack was Out of line and utterly wrong and Not Just on "soot
".
I assume you don't take issue with a simple Ice Volume calculation range either. (20'-23' rise if melted)

I wager he just knee-Jerk conservative-partisanly responded with a blanket insult that is so common on this board.
I always find it interesting (if NOT rock solid) when someone has 300++ posts in 'Environment and Climate' and ZERO posts in 'Science and Technology'.

Additionally, one sees, especially on the Warming Denial side, these posters are basically Straight Conservatives who post, then just pop Seamlessly from here to "Obama Sucks" in the political sections. It's just part of the same un-thought-out pure politics.
 
Last edited:
That was My point.
Thanks. In fact I don't even remember anyone else even bringing up 'Soot' as a contributing ice-melt factor here previously, tho it may have been done.
So to call a factor, and possibly even an original/first-time one here, "nonsense" is wrong and a ridiculous attempt at insult.

I, and most everyone else here would say, at the very least, you've been Devil's Advocate. And I do mean at the very least.

Um.
You Disagreed strongly with Jack.
Our debate wasn't so much about warming/AGW or not.
Our main issue was His calling of my post, Including the Soot factor You agreed with, "complete nonsense".

So when you acknowledged even that alone, you Destroyed Jack's baseLess insult of my post

As Well there was in a subsequent correction I made of it... how much sea Level WOULD rise IF Greenland alone melted.
Which also was ACCURATE, not "nonsense'.
So Jack was Out of line and utterly wrong and Not Just on "soot
".
I assume you don't take issue with a simple Ice Volume calculation range either. (20'-23' rise if melted)

I wager he just knee-Jerk conservative-partisanly responded with a blanket insult that is so common on this board.
I always find it interesting (if NOT rock solid) when someone has 300++ posts in 'Environment and Climate' and ZERO posts in 'Science and Technology'.

Additionally, one sees, especially on the Warming Denial side, these posters are basically Straight Conservatives who post, then just pop Seamlessly from here to "Obama Sucks" in the political sections. It's just part of the same un-thought-out pure politics.

False. "Our main issue was His calling of my post, Including the Soot factor You agreed with, "complete nonsense"." I never addressed soot.:peace
 
False. "Our main issue was His calling of my post, Including the Soot factor You agreed with, "complete nonsense"." I never addressed soot. :peace
If you "never addressed soot", then my post could NOT be "Complete nonsense".
Ooops! (and Duh)

In fact you never addressed ANYTHING when challenged. You said/LIED (as you always do) it didn't need addressing.
Jack Hays: "The entire post was fantasy. Because there's no reality to it, there's nothing to debate against."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...ever-recorded-almost-80-f.html#post1062199554

So if you now Claim/ADMIT you did "NOT address the entire post", then the post could NOT Be "Complete nonsense".
You're necessarily Self-Impeached and Lying Again.
Unnnnbelievable. Is this guy for real? he worked in intelligence! :^)

In fact II, one notes in ALL your debates/cracked-claims, you Crap out because you have No real answers.
Here's another from This section illustrating what a FRAUD Jack Hays' posts are:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...tolemaic-planetary-system.html#post1062097799

You can never Answer anything, just post like a Schoolboy caught LYING whenever challenged.
What utter Empty Fraud.

You can Never post any factual content except Vague link dumping. You are unable to have a linear debate. When outclassed by facts (EVERY time), you just say "no"/"nonsense" or repeat your one-link for that string.
Utter Fraud.

Then there was your inside scoop/forte for us: having been in 'intelligence' (No wonder this countries agencies have infamously gone to hell in the last few decades).
But you Wiped Out even on that!
Your Ostensible area.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/163453-myth-american-coup-iran.html#post1062204861
Utterly Refuted Even in the [Only] area of you have 'expertise'!

All your posts are the Caught-Lying-Fraud, one-line, answers or last-wording repeats of a child. "nonsense"

I love outing Fraud, and No one is as oft/daily guilty of it than You.
It's incredible how Childish and Obtuse the posts are of someone who worked as an 'historian' and foreign-posted apparachik.
And thanks for Bumping my string again.
You wanna Obsessively Last-word then your posts are Not Only going to be held up for the Ridicule they deserve, but you're going to be bumping my favorite headline too. ('tactics' son)
 
Last edited:
If you "never addressed soot", then my post could NOT be "Complete nonsense".
Ooops! (and Duh)

In fact you never addressed ANYTHING when challenged. You said/LIED (as you always do) it didn't need addressing.
Jack Hays: "The entire post was fantasy. Because there's no reality to it, there's nothing to debate against."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...ever-recorded-almost-80-f.html#post1062199554

So if you now Claim/ADMIT you did "NOT address the entire post", then the post could NOT Be "Complete nonsense".
You're necessarily Self-Impeached and Lying Again.
Unnnnbelievable. Is this guy for real? he worked in intelligence! :^)

In fact II, one notes in ALL your debates/cracked-claims, you Crap out because you have No real answers.
Here's another from This section illustrating what a FRAUD Jack Hays' posts are:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...tolemaic-planetary-system.html#post1062097799

You can never Answer anything, just post like a Schoolboy caught LYING whenever challenged.
What utter Empty Fraud.

You can Never post any factual content except Vague link dumping. You are unable to have a linear debate. When outclassed by facts (EVERY time), you just say "no"/"nonsense" or repeat your one-link for that string.
Utter Fraud.

Then there was your inside scoop/forte for us: having been in 'intelligence' (No wonder this countries agencies have infamously gone to hell in the last few decades).
But you Wiped Out even on that!
Your Ostensible area.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/163453-myth-american-coup-iran.html#post1062204861
Utterly Refuted Even in the [Only] area of you have 'expertise'!

All your posts are the Caught-Lying-Fraud, one-line, answers or last-wording repeats of a child. "nonsense"

I love outing Fraud, and No one is as oft/daily guilty of it than You.
It's incredible how Childish and Obtuse the posts are of someone who worked as an 'historian' and foreign-posted apparachik.
And thanks for Bumping my string again.
You wanna Obsessively Last-word then your posts are Not Only going to be held up for the Ridicule they deserve, but you're going to be bumping my favorite headline too. ('tactics' son)

The overall "nonsense" load was enough to overwhelm that glimmer of good sense. I'll revise to "almost complete nonsense."
 
People are jumping on board - but it's still not easy. There's no infrastructure.

Race for Resources: Warm to Investors, Greenland Opens Up - WSJ.com
Prospectors Develop Projects to Mine Potential Bounty in Minerals
By JAMES T. AREDDY
August 22, 2013

ILULIALIK FIORD, Greenland—Geologists have long known that deep beneath the forbidding ice of this Arctic island lay buried treasure.
Below hundreds of feet of frozen water and ground, iron, copper, nickel, zinc, rare-earth minerals and rubies beckon. Oil and gas may sit offshore.
Fortune hunters taste opportunity. Prospectors from various countries, encouraged by Greenland's investment-friendly policies, have spent over $1.7 billion developing potential projects. A British company is going for iron ore. Scots are testing for undersea oil. Australians are pursuing rare earths. Canadians are digging for rubies, while giant Chinese mining and engineering concerns are jockeying for position.

In Greenland, the Arctic is in play.

Recent annual Thaws make it possible for the Danish territory to contemplate exploiting these riches,
even though the 56,000 people who live on the world's biggest island lack the means to build the ports, roads and power plants required to transform the fishing-based economy into a mining one.
[.......]

P1-BM826_CGREEN_G_20130822195052.jpg

New construction in Nuuk

Mining iron ore above the fiord is a potential budget-buster, starting with plans to dynamite a plaster of ice 550-feet thick. Up to 3,000 Chinese laborers will endure raging winds and subzero temperatures to construct power and processing plants. A pipeline will snake 64 miles down the mountain to a new port. Ships loaded with ore would navigate to China, possibly on an increasingly viable summertime voyage that cuts near the North Pole and reduces Europe-China travel time by 40%.

"We recognize that it is a door-opening project for Greenland," says Graeme Hossie, chief executive officer of London Mining. "One needs to put together a lot of aligned interests to make it work."
Few "mineral hypermarkets," enthusiasts say, can rival Greenland in good governance—its Danish-standard political stability, predictable legal system and minimal corruption.
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
 
Last edited:
They are having snow melting every year, and increasingly quickly because of warming. AGW warming and in this case aided by AGW Soot.
Drip, Drip.
And I believe Greenland alone would raise seal level 8 feet [If] it melted completely. (Later corrected/made even more pognant by me: it's 20-23 feet)
Pretty Catastrophic.
The entire post was fantasy. Because there's no reality to it, there's nothing to debate against.
There is not and Will Not be a Catastrophic Greenland ice melt.
I said it would be "pretty catastrophic" IF it melted and I stand by that.
Indeed, it's UNdebatebly true. (Even if you were remotely capable or sincere about debate)

You have NOT shown otherwise. You NEVER show Any claim/counterclaim you bobble up to be true.
It's either 10 Stupid words and a peace-sign, or an Unexcerpted Link Dump.
(Unexcerpted, because you have NO idea what's in them, just that they Vaguely are on your side.)



Sea Change: University of Wyoming professor Neil Humphrey studies Greenland's Melting Ice

August 26, 2013 10:00 am • By BENJAMIN STORROW Star-Tribune feature writer
http://trib.com/sea-change-universi...cle_241466ed-0884-5c93-94e7-a71984875351.html

A great deal has been made in recent years of Greenland’s melting ice sheet. And With Reason. The Greenland ice sheet is one continuous block the size of Texas. If it were to all melt, sea levels would rise by 20 feet, enough to flood nearly all of Florida.
Again: PRECISELY What I said.

It continues
No one expects the Greenland ice sheet to melt all at once. More likely, if current climate trends continue, it is a process that will take years. The implications are nonetheless Significant. In 2010, approximately 44% of the world’s population lived within 90 miles of the sea, according to the United Nations. Even a slight rise in sea levels has the Potential to be Catastrophic.

Against that backdrop, Neil Humphrey, a professor geology and geophysics at the University of Wyoming, headed to Greenland in 2009. The purpose of the trip was relatively simple: Develop a system to predict how the ice was melting.

If the Greenland ice sheet had the potential to flood cities and entire states, Humphrey reasoned, it would probably be good to accurately predict how the ice will melt.
“There has been a huge amount of theory in the last 10 years ever since people started worrying about Greenland melting,” Humphrey said. “There was no data on what was really happening on and under the ice sheet, so you couldn’t prove or disprove the theories.” That’s where things start to get complicated. The working theory at the time was one that Humphrey helped develop.

Humphrey, 64, is a glaciologist. He has spent the last three decades studying glaciers in the Himalayas, Greenland, Alaska and Antarctica. The theory that was being used to predict Greenland’s melt was the one developed to predict the melting of mountain glaciers.
[..........]
But what does it all mean? Can Florida celebrate or has the Sunshine state’s execution merely been stayed? It’s a complicated question, not the least because of the political debate surrounding global warming. Humphrey’s research, like that of many scientists, does Not fit into the neatly constructed boxes employed by politicians on either side.

Take the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet. Each summer, about 10 feet of Greenland’s ice melts and each winter the ice is replaced. The alarm bells begin ringing when the melt exceeds 10 feet. Humphrey believes the ALARM BELLS are just starting to sound.
“Despite the fact that Greenland is melting quite Dramatically right now, it is not impacting sea level rise. That is the melting mountain glaciers,” he said, noting the dramatic retreat of glaciers in places like the Wind River Mountains, Glacier National Park, and Alaska. “Greenland will kick in another 10 to 20 years.”

Humphrey worries about the hubbub around Greenland’s ice sheet. If the melting ice sheets are not contributing to sea level right now, but a huge deal is being made of their melting, the public might lose interest. They’re not contributing to the problem now, so what’s the big deal?

And that, Humphrey believes, is Dangerous. For low-lying states and countries, the Stakes are HUGE.
Places like Bangladesh, the Netherlands and Denmark could all be flooded, forcing their populations to seek higher ground elsewhere.

Sea level rise is HUGELY PROBLEMATIC Human concern in the next 20 to 30 years,”
Humphrey said. “The political Disruption that will be caused by sea level rise rivals things like the Great Depression and the dust bowls.”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom