• 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!

Unusually early Greenland Melt

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
24,806
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unusually Early Greenland Melt: Polar Portal

Unusually Early Greenland Melt

By Ruth Mottram, DMI
April 12th 2016

An early melt event over the Greenland ice sheet occurred this week, smashing by a month the previous records of more than 10% of the ice sheet melting.

5cf03a1e16.png

Based on observation-initialized weather model runs by DMI, almost 12% of the Greenland ice sheet had more than 1mm of melt on Monday 11th April, following an early start to melting the previous day. Scientists at DMI were at first incredulous due to the early date. “We had to check that our models were still working properly” said Peter Langen, a climate scientist at DMI. “Fortunately we could see from the PROMICE.dk stations on the ice sheet that it had been well above melting, even above 10 °C. This helped to explain the results”. The former top 3 earliest dates for a melt area larger than 10% were previously all in May (5th May 2010, 8th May 1990, 8th May 2006).

“Even weather stations quite high up on the ice sheet observed very high temperatures on Monday”, said Robert Fausto, a scientist at GEUS who maintains PROMICE.dk melt data. “At KAN_U for example, a site at 1840 m above sea level, we observed a maximum temperature of 3.1°C. This would be a warm day in July, never mind April”. Other PROMICE stations in the network at lower levels had daily average temperatures between 5 and 10 °C.

Similarly, around the coast of Greenland where DMI has climate records dating back to 1873, Greenland came close to setting a record temperature for the whole of Greenland in April. Kangerlussuaq measured a daily maximum of 17.8°C and the DMI observation station at the Summit of Greenland set a new “warm” April record of -6.6°C. “Averything is melting” observed Nuuk resident Aqqaluk Petersen.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,827
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The old weather climate thing again....

How much in Gton melted? anybody know?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,067
Reaction score
46,553
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The old weather climate thing again....

How much in Gton melted? anybody know?

When you guys stop posting threads every time it snows in January maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
27,903
Reaction score
18,378
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When you guys stop posting threads every time it snows in January maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

And if you guys would stop posting threads every damn time an ice cube melts that'd be refreshing too. :roll:
 

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
31,212
Reaction score
16,570
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
When you guys stop posting threads every time it snows in January maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

So are you saying that Threegoofs and your imagined skeptic are both wrong for doing it?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
57,186
Reaction score
18,960
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Looks like Greenland is having a nice spring.

There is also increased geothermal activity under the ice.

From Nature Geoscience: Heat flux variations beneath central Greenland’s ice due to anomalously thin lithosphere


We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland increases from west to east due to thinning of the lithosphere, which is only about 25–66% as thick as is typical for terrains of early Proterozoic age5. Complex interactions between geothermal heat flow and glaciation-induced thermal perturbations in the upper crust over glacial cycles lead to strong regional variations in basal ice conditions, with areas of rapid basal melting adjoining areas of extremely cold basal ice.

---

A strong thinning of the thermal lithosphere, from 103 km in the west to 60 km in the southeast of the summit region, has immediate implications for the regional thermal state of the uppermost lithosphere and the modelled GHF. At a depth of 2 km, where influence of past climate variations is less, GHF increases by 17 mW m−2 from west to east. At the ice sheet base, glacial cycle variation (Supplementary Fig. S3), has amplified this west-to-east lateral gradient to more than 30 mW m−2 (Fig. 4a).

---

This strong coupling between the thermal bedrock and dynamic ice cover, driven by their joint thermal evolution and associated feedback effects (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. S3), explains, for example, the implied presence of basal ice melting in the southwestern corner of the summit area normally characterized by low deep GHF.
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
24,806
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is also increased geothermal activity under the ice.

From Nature Geoscience: Heat flux variations beneath central Greenland’s ice due to anomalously thin lithosphere


We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland increases from west to east due to thinning of the lithosphere, which is only about 25–66% as thick as is typical for terrains of early Proterozoic age5. Complex interactions between geothermal heat flow and glaciation-induced thermal perturbations in the upper crust over glacial cycles lead to strong regional variations in basal ice conditions, with areas of rapid basal melting adjoining areas of extremely cold basal ice.

---

A strong thinning of the thermal lithosphere, from 103 km in the west to 60 km in the southeast of the summit region, has immediate implications for the regional thermal state of the uppermost lithosphere and the modelled GHF. At a depth of 2 km, where influence of past climate variations is less, GHF increases by 17 mW m−2 from west to east. At the ice sheet base, glacial cycle variation (Supplementary Fig. S3), has amplified this west-to-east lateral gradient to more than 30 mW m−2 (Fig. 4a).

---

This strong coupling between the thermal bedrock and dynamic ice cover, driven by their joint thermal evolution and associated feedback effects (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. S3), explains, for example, the implied presence of basal ice melting in the southwestern corner of the summit area normally characterized by low deep GHF.

Yes. It's all from geothermal heat.

The allusion to AGW is clearly part of the conspiracy...errrr...'groupthink'.

Thank god our intrepid auto didact libertarian amateurs know better! They subscribe to a science journal, so they know!
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
57,186
Reaction score
18,960
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yes. It's all from geothermal heat.

The allusion to AGW is clearly part of the conspiracy...errrr...'groupthink'.

Thank god our intrepid auto didact libertarian amateurs know better! They subscribe to a science journal, so they know!

I wonder how many people besides myself laugh at your all or nothing approach to things, and illogical conclusions?

You need not try any longer. I don't think anyone else is applying for the forum jester position.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,520
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Unusually Early Greenland Melt: Polar Portal

Unusually Early Greenland Melt

By Ruth Mottram, DMI
April 12th 2016

An early melt event over the Greenland ice sheet occurred this week, smashing by a month the previous records of more than 10% of the ice sheet melting.

5cf03a1e16.png

Based on observation-initialized weather model runs by DMI, almost 12% of the Greenland ice sheet had more than 1mm of melt on Monday 11th April, following an early start to melting the previous day. Scientists at DMI were at first incredulous due to the early date. “We had to check that our models were still working properly” said Peter Langen, a climate scientist at DMI. “Fortunately we could see from the PROMICE.dk stations on the ice sheet that it had been well above melting, even above 10 °C. This helped to explain the results”. The former top 3 earliest dates for a melt area larger than 10% were previously all in May (5th May 2010, 8th May 1990, 8th May 2006).

“Even weather stations quite high up on the ice sheet observed very high temperatures on Monday”, said Robert Fausto, a scientist at GEUS who maintains PROMICE.dk melt data. “At KAN_U for example, a site at 1840 m above sea level, we observed a maximum temperature of 3.1°C. This would be a warm day in July, never mind April”. Other PROMICE stations in the network at lower levels had daily average temperatures between 5 and 10 °C.

Similarly, around the coast of Greenland where DMI has climate records dating back to 1873, Greenland came close to setting a record temperature for the whole of Greenland in April. Kangerlussuaq measured a daily maximum of 17.8°C and the DMI observation station at the Summit of Greenland set a new “warm” April record of -6.6°C. “Averything is melting” observed Nuuk resident Aqqaluk Petersen.

Shhhh, you not supposed to notice this, didn't you get the memo.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is also increased geothermal activity under the ice.

From Nature Geoscience: Heat flux variations beneath central Greenland’s ice due to anomalously thin lithosphere


We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland increases from west to east due to thinning of the lithosphere, which is only about 25–66% as thick as is typical for terrains of early Proterozoic age5. Complex interactions between geothermal heat flow and glaciation-induced thermal perturbations in the upper crust over glacial cycles lead to strong regional variations in basal ice conditions, with areas of rapid basal melting adjoining areas of extremely cold basal ice.

---

A strong thinning of the thermal lithosphere, from 103 km in the west to 60 km in the southeast of the summit region, has immediate implications for the regional thermal state of the uppermost lithosphere and the modelled GHF. At a depth of 2 km, where influence of past climate variations is less, GHF increases by 17 mW m−2 from west to east. At the ice sheet base, glacial cycle variation (Supplementary Fig. S3), has amplified this west-to-east lateral gradient to more than 30 mW m−2 (Fig. 4a).

---

This strong coupling between the thermal bedrock and dynamic ice cover, driven by their joint thermal evolution and associated feedback effects (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. S3), explains, for example, the implied presence of basal ice melting in the southwestern corner of the summit area normally characterized by low deep GHF.

I am sure that combined with this really strong el nino effect going on that hasn't helped.
however again this is just weather and not actual climate.
 

GunFora

Banned
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
564
Location
NH, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
...around and around goes the Earth's cyclic weather. No biggie.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wonder how many people besides myself laugh at your all or nothing approach to things, and illogical conclusions?

You need not try any longer. I don't think anyone else is applying for the forum jester position.

my take is that the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do and there is little that anyone can do to stop it.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Unusually Early Greenland Melt: Polar Portal

Unusually Early Greenland Melt

By Ruth Mottram, DMI
April 12th 2016

An early melt event over the Greenland ice sheet occurred this week, smashing by a month the previous records of more than 10% of the ice sheet melting.

5cf03a1e16.png

Based on observation-initialized weather model runs by DMI, almost 12% of the Greenland ice sheet had more than 1mm of melt on Monday 11th April, following an early start to melting the previous day. Scientists at DMI were at first incredulous due to the early date. “We had to check that our models were still working properly” said Peter Langen, a climate scientist at DMI. “Fortunately we could see from the PROMICE.dk stations on the ice sheet that it had been well above melting, even above 10 °C. This helped to explain the results”. The former top 3 earliest dates for a melt area larger than 10% were previously all in May (5th May 2010, 8th May 1990, 8th May 2006).

“Even weather stations quite high up on the ice sheet observed very high temperatures on Monday”, said Robert Fausto, a scientist at GEUS who maintains PROMICE.dk melt data. “At KAN_U for example, a site at 1840 m above sea level, we observed a maximum temperature of 3.1°C. This would be a warm day in July, never mind April”. Other PROMICE stations in the network at lower levels had daily average temperatures between 5 and 10 °C.

Similarly, around the coast of Greenland where DMI has climate records dating back to 1873, Greenland came close to setting a record temperature for the whole of Greenland in April. Kangerlussuaq measured a daily maximum of 17.8°C and the DMI observation station at the Summit of Greenland set a new “warm” April record of -6.6°C. “Averything is melting” observed Nuuk resident Aqqaluk Petersen.

You know, you're getting to be pretty much as bad as the abortion and gun trolls. Every couple of days, a new thread that provides no proposed solutions or ways forward, just an opportunity to belittle anyone who doesn't jump on board and wring their hands about the planet expiring.

What's your solution? What should mankind do? If we cut out all fossil fuels, are you going to quell the riots as people lose their incomes and ability to survive?

Your threads on this subject are nothing but trolling expeditions.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
27,903
Reaction score
18,378
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, melting ice cubes can be very refreshing particularly as the summer approaches.

There was a faster melt noted in the 1930's. That would be before - oh, never mind. Stuff like that isn't critical to the cause.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There was a faster melt noted in the 1930's. That would be before - oh, never mind. Stuff like that isn't critical to the cause.

That was probably during the depression when many were drowning their sorrows with a scotch on the rocks.
 
Last edited:

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know, you're getting to be pretty much as bad as the abortion and gun trolls. Every couple of days, a new thread that provides no proposed solutions or ways forward, just an opportunity to belittle anyone who doesn't jump on board and wring their hands about the planet expiring.

Considering that the way forward is being blocked by the climate trolls, I'd say getting rid of the trolls is a valuable thing to do. Or at least shaming them into silence.

What's your solution? What should mankind do? If we cut out all fossil fuels, are you going to quell the riots as people lose their incomes and ability to survive?

Your threads on this subject are nothing but trolling expeditions.

1. We need a tax on fossil carbon that is commensurate with the climate damage it is going to cause. It can be phased in, and the revenue can be rebated back on a per-capita basis. But it will provide a strong incentive for everyone to get off the fossil habit and choose different forms of energy instead. It will also make non-fossil alternatives much stronger in the market and encourage their swift adoption.

2. Second, we need to decarbonize the electrical grid. Ontario is nearly there already, as are Sweden, Iceland, France and Norway. The fastest-cheapest method is geothermal and hydro where available, wind up to the curtailment point, and nuclear for the rest.

3. Once the grid is decarbonized, switch everything else off of fossil and into (fossil-free) electric. That means especially space heating and transportation.

4. Remaining processes can be covered with synfuels manufactured with fossil-free electricity. For example, the US Navy has already tested aviation fuel made from electricity and sea water.

5. Once we have eliminated greenhouse emissions, we need to go after some of the CO2 we have already put into the air. The cheapest method is accelerated weathering processes that naturally convert CO2 into carbonate rocks.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Considering that the way forward is being blocked by the climate trolls, I'd say getting rid of the trolls is a valuable thing to do. Or at least shaming them into silence.



1. We need a tax on fossil carbon that is commensurate with the climate damage it is going to cause. It can be phased in, and the revenue can be rebated back on a per-capita basis. But it will provide a strong incentive for everyone to get off the fossil habit and choose different forms of energy instead. It will also make non-fossil alternatives much stronger in the market and encourage their swift adoption.

2. Second, we need to decarbonize the electrical grid. Ontario is nearly there already, as are Sweden, Iceland, France and Norway. The fastest-cheapest method is geothermal and hydro where available, wind up to the curtailment point, and nuclear for the rest.

3. Once the grid is decarbonized, switch everything else off of fossil and into (fossil-free) electric. That means especially space heating and transportation.

4. Remaining processes can be covered with synfuels manufactured with fossil-free electricity. For example, the US Navy has already tested aviation fuel made from electricity and sea water.

5. Once we have eliminated greenhouse emissions, we need to go after some of the CO2 we have already put into the air. The cheapest method is accelerated weathering processes that naturally convert CO2 into carbonate rocks.

I appreciate your reasoned response, but I'd just make a few counter comments:

1. Ontario should be nobody's example of competent, considered, and rational approaches to moving a society away from fossil fuels in the energy field. A review of the Ontario Liberal government's Green Energy Act is like taking a master's class in incompetence and corruption. Ontario moved off coal fired electricity plants, almost a decade after the government claimed they would, and although they claimed that solar and wind would make up the difference from lost coal, the reality is that natural gas and nuclear power have replaced all but a miniscule part of the difference while the government has wasted $billions on wind and solar, particularly wind, that nobody wants and they are paying 10 times the cost of other sources, guaranteed as first priority, for a decade to come, increasing the cost to consumers by almost 100% during that time and not doing a damn thing to actually reduce the Province's carbon footprint. Billions of wasted dollars, extreme increases in consumer cost, hundreds of thousands of consumers driven into energy poverty, and not a wit of impact on the environment or climate.

2. None of your rational proposals are the slightest bit relevant while the vast majority of the damage being done to the environment continues to go on unabated in China and India and of course the US as well, but at least you seem willing to destroy your own country's economy in the process. What we're doing here in Canada is bordering on criminal.

3. You will never eliminate greenhouse emissions and CO2 is essential to the health of the planet and its natural life.

4. And most essential and relevant of all, climate change remediation as it stands now and as adopted in the most recent UN dog and pony show is a scam and not the slightest bit concerned with climate but entirely concerned with wealth redistribution and the creation of a UN led government/bank that feeds first world dollars to third world despots and bag men, all while pocketing $billions for themselves.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,840
Reaction score
27,943
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I appreciate your reasoned response, but I'd just make a few counter comments:

1. Ontario should be nobody's example of competent, considered, and rational approaches to moving a society away from fossil fuels in the energy field. A review of the Ontario Liberal government's Green Energy Act is like taking a master's class in incompetence and corruption. Ontario moved off coal fired electricity plants, almost a decade after the government claimed they would, and although they claimed that solar and wind would make up the difference from lost coal, the reality is that natural gas and nuclear power have replaced all but a miniscule part of the difference while the government has wasted $billions on wind and solar, particularly wind, that nobody wants and they are paying 10 times the cost of other sources, guaranteed as first priority, for a decade to come, increasing the cost to consumers by almost 100% during that time and not doing a damn thing to actually reduce the Province's carbon footprint. Billions of wasted dollars, extreme increases in consumer cost, hundreds of thousands of consumers driven into energy poverty, and not a wit of impact on the environment or climate.

2. None of your rational proposals are the slightest bit relevant while the vast majority of the damage being done to the environment continues to go on unabated in China and India and of course the US as well, but at least you seem willing to destroy your own country's economy in the process. What we're doing here in Canada is bordering on criminal.

3. You will never eliminate greenhouse emissions and CO2 is essential to the health of the planet and its natural life.

4. And most essential and relevant of all, climate change remediation as it stands now and as adopted in the most recent UN dog and pony show is a scam and not the slightest bit concerned with climate but entirely concerned with wealth redistribution and the creation of a UN led government/bank that feeds first world dollars to third world despots and bag men, all while pocketing $billions for themselves.

China in particular is making massive strides to decarbonisation. Their lowered demand was given as one of the excuses for the demise of Peabody Coal only days ago.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
China in particular is making massive strides to decarbonisation. Their lowered demand was given as one of the excuses for the demise of Peabody Coal only days ago.

Utter bull****, and you know it.

China is experiencing slowing growth, but massive growth none the less. They are not reducing their impact on man made climate change and you're simply being dishonest to purport that they are.

In fact, the only time that man made carbon emissions have been reduced in the past was during the 2007/2008 financial crisis that affected production world wide. According to you, we should have another, more drastic, financial crisis to save the planet.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I appreciate your reasoned response, but I'd just make a few counter comments:

1. Ontario should be nobody's example of competent, considered, and rational approaches to moving a society away from fossil fuels in the energy field.

The atmosphere doesn't care about politics, it only cares about results. And the results from Ontario are pretty good by most standards, regardless of how they were achieved.

2. None of your rational proposals are the slightest bit relevant while the vast majority of the damage being done to the environment continues to go on unabated in China and India and of course the US as well,

The old we-can't-do-it-because-we're-not-doing-it argument. Kindly sell your depression elsewhere. The rest of us want to solve the problem and we would appreciate it if you wouldn't stand in our way.

but at least you seem willing to destroy your own country's economy in the process. What we're doing here in Canada is bordering on criminal.

Actually, it's your do-nothing plan that will destroy the economy. The cost of doing nothing on climate has been estimated at between $6 trillion per year to $20 trillion per year by 2100, which is as much as 10% of global GDP. (For comparison, the Great Recession cost the world about $3 trillion). Meanwhile, the cost of mitigation is between 1/5 and 1/10 of that amount. (See Watkiss 2005, Kemfert 2005, Stern 2006).


3. You will never eliminate greenhouse emissions and CO2 is essential to the health of the planet and its natural life.
We can get pretty close, close enough to reduce the rate of climate change to a manageable level. Right now, we're changing the climate 10 times faster than the fastest natural climate change in geologic history. And that's just catastrophic for the natural world. Meanwhile, we've already got more than enough CO2 for plant growth and we don't need any more.

4. And most essential and relevant of all, climate change remediation as it stands now and as adopted in the most recent UN dog and pony show is a scam and not the slightest bit concerned with climate but entirely concerned with wealth redistribution and the creation of a UN led government/bank that feeds first world dollars to third world despots and bag men, all while pocketing $billions for themselves.

I see you've drunk the climate conspiracy kool-aid. Sorry for your brain, because it was probably working fine at some point in the past.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The atmosphere doesn't care about politics, it only cares about results. And the results from Ontario are pretty good by most standards, regardless of how they were achieved.



The old we-can't-do-it-because-we're-not-doing-it argument. Kindly sell your depression elsewhere. The rest of us want to solve the problem and we would appreciate it if you wouldn't stand in our way.



Actually, it's your do-nothing plan that will destroy the economy. The cost of doing nothing on climate has been estimated at between $6 trillion per year to $20 trillion per year by 2100, which is as much as 10% of global GDP. (For comparison, the Great Recession cost the world about $3 trillion). Meanwhile, the cost of mitigation is between 1/5 and 1/10 of that amount. (See Watkiss 2005, Kemfert 2005, Stern 2006).



We can get pretty close, close enough to reduce the rate of climate change to a manageable level. Right now, we're changing the climate 10 times faster than the fastest natural climate change in geologic history. And that's just catastrophic for the natural world. Meanwhile, we've already got more than enough CO2 for plant growth and we don't need any more.



I see you've drunk the climate conspiracy kool-aid. Sorry for your brain, because it was probably working fine at some point in the past.

Yes, the arrogance of the climate chicken littles. Spew statistics about 100 year out guesses as if they are undeniable and ridicule anyone who doesn't fall for the same scam they've swallowed, while simply ignoring the evidence on the ground and the day to day effects on people who actually live today.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,339
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes. It's all from geothermal heat.

The allusion to AGW is clearly part of the conspiracy...errrr...'groupthink'.

Thank god our intrepid auto didact libertarian amateurs know better! They subscribe to a science journal, so they know!

Hot magma is melting Greenland ice – can windfarms save it?



Here on the ball of magma called Earth, there’s a hot plume of rocks under Iceland that stretches right across under Greenland. Those hot rocks are melting the ice from below in a band 1,200 km long and 400 km wide.[SUP][1][/SUP]
I don’t think solar panels are going to stop Greenland melting.
The main part of the plume has been progressing eastward over the last 120 million years, right under Greenland and now lies under Iceland.
Will the media take a million years to catch on?
Presumably, being world class journalists, from now on all ABC/BBC/CBC stories will not mention melting Greenland ice-sheets without also noting that geothermal heat may be causing it instead of your long hot showers.
But a similar study published in Nature Geoscience 3 years ago was the forerunner to this one with similar conclusions and the mainstream media don’t seem to have noticed yet.[SUP][2][/SUP] No mention of magma, tectonics and hot rocks here: ABC — Antarctica’s melting ice alone could lift sea levels one metre by 2100, March 31st, 2016. Or here: ABC — Global warming melts last stable edge of Greenland’s Zachariae ice stream, March 17th, 2014. Or on the BBC – Ice sheet losses double, 2014. Or here — ABC: Antarctic ice shelf collapse “very likely”. October 2015.
There’s a hot blob under West Antarctica too
Likewise, soon the public broadcasters will let listeners know that West Antarctica lies over the southern edge of the Pacific Rim, and “might” have some geothermal heat from below too because there is giant blob of superheated rock there too. [SUP][3][/SUP]

Keep reading →
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,840
Reaction score
27,943
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Utter bull****, and you know it.

China is experiencing slowing growth, but massive growth none the less. They are not reducing their impact on man made climate change and you're simply being dishonest to purport that they are.

In fact, the only time that man made carbon emissions have been reduced in the past was during the 2007/2008 financial crisis that affected production world wide. According to you, we should have another, more drastic, financial crisis to save the planet.

You are simply wrong. Your inability to accept it is telling.
 
Top Bottom