Comments on: Far North Greenland Glacier Cracking Up

Scientists Cautious About Attributing To Global Warming, But Agree It Fits A Trend

[ubrew12]

louiville2 said: "Langmuir%u2019s ''Pathological science '' "

The role of CO2 in Earths greenhouse effect was figured out by the 1890''s. Despite its low concentration in our atmosphere, CO2''s effect is so pronounced our planet would be frozen over were CO2''s concentration to fall to zero. This is not especially controversial, and exists independent of the ''climate change'' controversy.

Its also not particularly controversial that CO2 concentrations have risen by 50% over historical values in the last 100 years. This has been measured directly in numerous places.

Just juxtaposing those two noncontroversial and widely recognized facts makes your post nonsensical. Given CO2''s role in the greenhouse effect, and its dramatic increase in the last century, neither of which is controversial, its logical to expect an impact on our climate.

And its illogical (bordering now on irresponsible, given the evidence) to deny it.

[louiville2]

Langmuir%u2019s %u201CPathological science %u201C
1)The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. (i.e. CO2 mans contribution 1.1 parts per 100,000)
2) The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. (0.6 deg C)
3) There are claims of great accuracy. (Climate models which can''t predict past KNOWN data)
4) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. (Just listen to Hanson or Mann)
5)Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses. (I.E. Al Gore or many on this post)
6)The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion. (We are seeing that now)

[jowand]

Where do you think all of the worlds ice bergs come from, Al Gore''s refrigerator?

[frankie2fing]

Would you idiots get off the whole ''last year was the coldest in the century ***'' once and for all? Just one year is like a nanosecond to the earth. Of course there will be anomalies: some hot, some cold. It is the trend that is the concern. We are warming our environment just when we should be in a gradual cooling trend. Our little planet is slowly tilting its poles in an opposite direction that would make the northern hemisphere''s summer into winter. This happens on a cycle of about 40,000 years. This is when the ''ice ages'' occur as when the earth is closet to the sun, the southern hemisphere is tilted towards. But instead of cooling, we are warming. Only idiots who listen to drug induced rants by a self-serving bigot believe otherwise. It is time to wake up, people. If we do not stop now, our species is doomed. The earth will not care.

[adfolder]

I think the whole world is cracking up

[voidmaster-2009]

Denial is just delusion in reverse.

[jydavis1]

this supports that 9/11 was indeed an inside job

[ubrew12]

davebco said: "the evidence is increasingly overwhelming that anthropogenic global warming effects is showing an alarming increase well beyond predictions less than a decade ago. "
Thats very true and thanks for posting. I''m especially alarmed about the news from the polar regions in the last 5 years. It seems every time someone completes a study, the conclusion is, "things are a lot worse than we imagined they were".

The many deniers on these threads say the news media is biased against them unfairly. Yet, the bias runs the other way, serving to ENCOURAGE the deniers point of view. A recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.

Contrast that with the media''s reporting on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than HALF of the articles discussing climate change gave EQUAL weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics.

If you want to know why nothing is being done about Global Warming, its the media. Many could lose their lives due to this media tilt.

[davebco]

I am a solar-terrestrial geophysicist with over 40 years experience. In my view, the evidence is increasingly overwhelming that anthropogenic global warming effects is showing an alarming increase well beyond predictions less than a decade ago. Every single established scientific organization throughout the world has reached the same conclusion (For example the National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, American Geophysical Union, National Academy of Sciences, and many, many more). I also believe the vast number of skeptics are ignorant and obstinate, failing to get their information from credible scientific journals or literature. Science does not start from a political world view, finding isolated exceptions to support an emotional reaction, but a rigorous process of observations, mathematical modeling, and debate. It is not a perfect process, and it does not "prove" a viewpoint, but it can provide sufficient evidence - sometimes and overwhelming amount - to support a hypothesis. As for the assertions that the planet is actually cooling, the sun is responsible for global warming, or the historical records contradict the body of evidence, are simply false.

[davebco]

I am a solar-terrestrial geophysicist with over 40 years experience. In my view, the evidence is increasingly overwhelming that anthropogenic global warming effects is showing an alarming increase well beyond predictions less than a decade ago. Every single established scientific organization throughout the world has reached the same conclusion (For example the National Weather Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, American Geophysical Union, National Academy of Sciences, and many, many more). I also believe the vast number of skeptics are ignorant and obstinate, failing to get their information from credible scientific journals or literature. Science does not start from a political world view, finding isolated exceptions to support an emotional reaction, but a rigorous process of observations, mathematical modeling, and debate. It is not a perfect process, and it does not "prove" a viewpoint, but it can provide sufficient evidence - sometimes and overwhelming amount - to support a hypothesis. As for the assertions that the planet is actually cooling, the sun is responsible for global warming, or the historical records contradict the body of evidence, are simply false.

[andylance1]

Crack is moving and moving closer and closer.

Algore says global warming is responsible for crack!

Tippergore says it is due to naughty words in music lyrics.

[kevsan1]

We are getting hype research these days. Major media is not reporting the colder temps in the southern hemisphere, the big drop over the last year, the fact that there are hardly any sun spots the past several months (when it was really hot a couple years ago - we had a really active sun), the recent growing ice pack in the arctic, etc. Greenland once was not completely covered in ice back when the Vikings named it and temperatures were warmer than now. This is rapidly becoming similar to the ongoing coffee debate.

[voidmaster-2009]

The notion left ME cracking up.

[voidmaster-2009]

Hmm. I thought this was a story about a glacier laughing.

[ubrew12]

zgomer said: "all you idiot liberal freedom haters wish it was global warming, even these people say it is a cycle to happen! morons! "

Now simmer down. Just because your worldview is crumbling before your eyes doesn''t mean you have to crumble with it. Maybe it''ll teach you some humility. Would that be so bad?

[seafang]

Now I didn''t read anything that says it was warm up there. I think they said some ice cracked; 11 square miles. They have pieces of ice much bigger than that float up along the NewZealand Coasts for the benefit of tourists, every few years.
Hey it''s summertime; wait till winter comes, and you Eastern seaboard folks are freezing your buns off, with very expensive heating oil; then tell me about the arctic ice going away.

The ice is floating, and usually when you have ice floating, there is actually water (ocean) underneath it; seems reasonable to me. Sometimes ships on the ocean crack in half, because of waves. Waves are when the surface of the ocean isn''t flat. If waves can break a ship in half, they surely can break a piece of ice, which doesn''t have any supporting steel inside of it.

Grow up; ice breaks all the time; and 11 square miles is nothing.

[louiville2]

Probubly caused by all those eco nut jobs with $50billion research money renting ice breackers to check on all the broken ice. LOL

[louiville2]

sociallyjust, you sound like a typical eco hypocrite See: "Disingenuous Green Campaigns Make Me Red" http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20080821/READERS/441036/1025/NEWS&parentprofile=-1

[czhnder]

Gimme a break! Yesterday some world meteorological group said this is the coldest year in five years worldwide. Will you "intellects" please make up your minds?!

[Razzl]

Maybe we can get the Republicans to at least agree that glaciers are melting from some kind of warming--or are they still in the stage where they accuse the press of making up these pictures? When icebergs start floating up the Potomac it will be hard to keep up their anti-science religion shtick...