Greenland glacier recedes 10 miles in 8 years

[eots]

You won't get real answers from the likes of Chris or Old Rocks, they have their heads so buried up Al Gores ASS they can tell you hours ahead of time when he will fart.

Greenland is NAMED Greenland because when it was found it was GREEN. The coasts and areas near the cost were ICE FREE. Vikings thrived there for several hundred years until the ice moved back in. Now Old Rocks would have you believe Greenland was never ice free even though we have HISTORY to prove it.

My question about melting ice is simple, if the ice is melting at these supposed rates and not being replaced else where why are the coast of the US still the same, how come I am not underwater already? Where has all the water gone?

RGS, real answers???

The above post is the perfect attempt at deflection.

Al Gore is not the issue.

Greenland's past is not the issure.

The Vikings are not the issue.(They had a couple of small outposts on the southern coast of Greenland and got frozen out and left)

The issue is, how much will raising atmospheric CO2 by 40% heat the earth? The scientists from MIT say there is a 90% certainty that it will heat the earth 4 to 7 degrees by the end of this century.

That's it. Those are the facts. Does this mean the earth will heat up 4 to 7 degrees by the end of the century? No, it does not. The earth might heat up more, a lot more if the arctic methane gets released. It also might heat up a lot less if the sun goes into a dormant stage.

RGS, asked why the coastline hasn't changed with the melting ice. It has. The seas rose 20 feet with the melting of the ice during the last Ice Age. But those were continental ice sheets on the land. Ice in the water such as the North Polar Ice Cap will not raise the seas much when they melt. It is land based ice such as the Greenland ice sheet or the ice in Antarctica that will raise the seas if they melt. That is why they are so important.

You keep claiming MILLIONS upon Millions of ice has melted from the poles. Why am I not under water? You keep claiming Greenland is going green. Why am I not underwater?

You keep claiming 4 percent of supposed greenhouse gasses are man made, which means 96 percent is NATURAL. Which means even if we shut down all CO2 production by man including breathing, 96 PERCENT of the gasses are coming from the EARTH. You want us to believe that CO2 , which has a diminishing effect on heat retention is the culprit for supposed future warming when science shows us that CO2 FOLLOWS rising heat it does not come first. And in fact the current events prove that to be TRUE.

you do realise the vastness of the conspiracy of scientific and government agency's you speak of dont you RGS ?..and though I agree with you ..I cant help but see some irony to this fact

 

[mal]

You keep claiming 4 percent of supposed greenhouse gasses are man made, which means 96 percent is NATURAL. Which means even if we shut down all CO2 production by man including breathing, 96 PERCENT of the gasses are coming from the EARTH.

Stop Illustrating the Facts... It Confuses them, and then others have to Suffer them in Real Life...

I have yet to Fully Understand why Liberals are Plagued with so much Misplaced Guilt on so MANY Issues...

You are NOT Killing the Planet, Libbies...

Seriously, you are NOT that Important.



peace...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

150 years ago the CO2 was 280 ppm. PPM meant "parts per million" back then right? So we're still talking about a molecule that is a rounding error so it the measure if off by even a tiny bit it will cause vastly wild swings in the measure. Did Al Gore have a great great great grandfather that measured CO2 back then?

Moreover, why aren't we consistently warmer then we were 150 years ago? If CO2 is that deadly and powerful a greenhouse gas why do we still have polar ice caps given the massive "increases" in what is still a trace element and a rounding error?

 

[mal]

150 years ago the CO2 was 280 ppm. PPM meant "parts per million" back then right? So we're still talking about a molecule that is a rounding error so it the measure if off by even a tiny bit it will cause vastly wild swings in the measure. Did Al Gore have a great great great grandfather that measured CO2 back then?

Moreover, why aren't we consistently warmer then we were 150 years ago? If CO2 is that deadly and powerful a greenhouse gas why do we still have polar ice caps given the massive "increases" in what is still a trace element and a rounding error?

What did we do to Cause the Great Dust Bowl, and more Importantly, what did we do to Fix it?...

These Questions, and many others will be Answered by the Left on the next Episode of... NOPE!



peace...

 

[Old Rocks]

Sorry Old Rocks, but that dog won't hunt.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring. And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

​

So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.

And even if you could find some outrageous source that claimed 30% of GHGs were caused by human activity (a ridiculous assertion), that would still leave natural GHG emissions at the same levels that turned Greenland green.

P.S. - I tried diligently to locate a pro-global-warming-theory site from which to pull the percentages of GHG caused by human activity. I found not one that included them...go figure.

Ok, I read your links (one was a repeat).

None answered the question.

Is 95% of ghg naturally occuring? This is the most important question.

Why does atmospheric CO2 rise

* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257]
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher,
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

 

[Old Rocks]

If one wants real information on the Viking colonies in Greenland, read Jared Diamond's "Collapse". The idiocies posted here by the ussual suspects are so far off from reality to be beyond ludicries.

 

[mal]

If one wants real information on the Viking colonies in Greenland, read Jared Diamond's "Collapse". The idiocies posted here by the ussual suspects are so far off from reality to be beyond ludicries.

I have yet to have to Water here in Denver... It's Mid-July and Technically, we are a Desert here...

I don't Remember EVER not having to Water into June, much less Mid-July...

Why just a few years ago, a Cyclical Drought came our way for few Years and Hysterical Environmentalists were Predicting no END... EVER!... They were Ready to Restrict Water, Civil Liberties, etc., etc...

All because that Drought was PROOF of what we had Done to this Poor Old Rock...

Now we have Record Rainfall and Consistently Unseasonably Cool Temps...

What Changed?...

Solar Activity.



peace...

 

[editec]

Two words, Sarge...tipping POINT.

Look it up.

 

[Missourian]

Ok, I read your links (one was a repeat).

None answered the question.

Is 95% of ghg naturally occuring? This is the most important question.

Why does atmospheric CO2 rise

* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257]
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher,
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

This is an evasive non-answer to the posed question.

I'll restate the question in a new post.

 

[Missourian]

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring. And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

Wikipedia has this

Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

They cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics
​

That corresponds with the 5.5% above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.



So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.


Is this true?

 

[Chris]

Yes, it is true, but the problem is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time, and if you add 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, year after year, and you cut down trees at the same time, you are going to increase atmospheric CO2 by 40% in 200 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, each year we add a small percentage compared to what nature adds. Yet nature also takes out a very large amount of what is added. It removes, throught plant life, absorbtion in the ocean, more than it adds. But not enough more to make up for what we add. And that is how we end up with a 40% increase of CO2 over what that level was 150 years ago. Not only that, that represents a 30% increase over what it has been in at least 650,000 years, possibly in over a million years.

If you read the article on the Carbon 13 and 14 ratios, you will see how we can tell that the additional CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet history shows us that Temperatures do not follow raising CO2 levels, CO2 levels rise following temperature rise. And that is demonstrated by the fact that CO2 has increased every year since 1998 and the Temperature has not.

Go figure.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tipping points. One hell of a scary subject. Anyone familiar with catastrophe theory, or chaos theory understands this concept. This is where a system previously in balance, changes states. The new state is often far differant from the previous state. We saw an example of this in the Younger Dryas. Also in the PETM, and the Permian-Triassic Extinction.

Both of the latter two examples represent times when an increase the atmospheric GHGs triggered a massive release of methane from ocean clathrates. As of last year, we began to see a release of methane from the Arctic Ocean clathrates.

Scientists Find Increased Methane Levels In Arctic Ocean

Scientists Find Increased Methane Levels In Arctic Ocean
ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — A team led by International Arctic Research Center scientist Igor Semiletov has found data to suggest that the carbon pool beneath the Arctic Ocean is leaking.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results of more than 1,000 measurements of dissolved methane in the surface water from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf this summer as part of the International Siberian Shelf Study show an increased level of methane in the area. Geophysical measurements showed methane bubbles coming out of chimneys on the seafloor.

“The concentrations of the methane were the highest ever measured in the summertime in the Arctic Ocean,” Semiletov said. “We have found methane bubble clouds above the gas-charged sediment and above the chimneys going through the sediment.”

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So now the heat isn't gonna kill is, we will all die due to methane gas poisoning, got any more scare tactics to employ?

 

[Old Rocks]

So now the heat isn't gonna kill is, we will all die due to methane gas poisoning, got any more scare tactics to employ?

Do you work at being an idiot?

 

[code1211]

Tipping points. One hell of a scary subject. Anyone familiar with catastrophe theory, or chaos theory understands this concept. This is where a system previously in balance, changes states. The new state is often far differant from the previous state. We saw an example of this in the Younger Dryas. Also in the PETM, and the Permian-Triassic Extinction.

Both of the latter two examples represent times when an increase the atmospheric GHGs triggered a massive release of methane from ocean clathrates. As of last year, we began to see a release of methane from the Arctic Ocean clathrates.
Scientists Find Increased Methane Levels In Arctic Ocean

Scientists Find Increased Methane Levels In Arctic Ocean
ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — A team led by International Arctic Research Center scientist Igor Semiletov has found data to suggest that the carbon pool beneath the Arctic Ocean is leaking.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results of more than 1,000 measurements of dissolved methane in the surface water from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf this summer as part of the International Siberian Shelf Study show an increased level of methane in the area. Geophysical measurements showed methane bubbles coming out of chimneys on the seafloor.

“The concentrations of the methane were the highest ever measured in the summertime in the Arctic Ocean,” Semiletov said. “We have found methane bubble clouds above the gas-charged sediment and above the chimneys going through the sediment.”

The part highlighted in red is not a logical conclusion. The increase in CO2 at the times mentioned were as likely a reaction to an increase in temperature as not. The overwhelming majority of evidence shows that temperature causes CO2 levels to change and this may tip the scales more toward the Temperature first thinking in these cases also. It was the rise in temperature which caused the outgassing of methane, not the rise in CO2.

For the millionth time or so, sorry about the repitition, our climate right now is NOT as high as any of the previous intergalcial peaks and all of those were achieved without the benefit of Man's influence.

The younger Dryas, the PETM and the permian triassic extinction were likewise begun and completed with no help from Man.

 

[Chris]

And yet history shows us that Temperatures do not follow raising CO2 levels, CO2 levels rise following temperature rise. And that is demonstrated by the fact that CO2 has increased every year since 1998 and the Temperature has not.

Go figure.

History doesn't matter because we are doing something that HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE!

Can't you figure that out???

 

[elvis]

So now the heat isn't gonna kill is, we will all die due to methane gas poisoning, got any more scare tactics to employ?

I keep telling the environuts to put their heads up sheeps' asses to combat global warming, but they just aren't dedicated to their cause.

 

[KittenKoder]

And yet history shows us that Temperatures do not follow raising CO2 levels, CO2 levels rise following temperature rise. And that is demonstrated by the fact that CO2 has increased every year since 1998 and the Temperature has not.

Go figure.

History doesn't matter because we are doing something that HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE!

Can't you figure that out???

That is the most idiotic thing you have ever said.