What do you mean, Greenland isn't melting?

Question

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd&Issue_id

How could ANY study in a peer reviewed journal come to any conclusion other than that Greenland is melting, and we're all going to drown tomorrow?

Obviously shills for Big Oil have somehow infiltrated these journals and allowed this horrifically shoddy study, based on (of all things) the FACTS, through to publication!

To arms, to arms, the Truth is coming!

Answer 1

If you look at a very small and specifically selected area like the edges of the Greenland Glaciers, you will find that there is some melting. This is all the believers need to *prove* the end is near.

It's no different than finding a small section of receding ice on the Antarctic peninsula and claiming that the Antarctic ice is receding even though other parts of the Ice Shelf are growing rapidly.

Answer 2

Bob,

So your biased sources are supposed to be better than the Senator's biased sources? Personally, I'll take the word of the MIT Center for Global Change Science. Their "Report 67: Snowpack Model Estimates of the Mass Balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet and Its Changes over the 21st Century" finds that their model projects that "the Greenland ice sheet does not contribute significantly to changes in the level of the ocean over the twentyfirst century."

The estimated range of sea level change in the MIT report using seven climate change scenarios is -0.6 to 1.7cm. This is much more credible than any of your links.

Answer 3

I trust the 11 scientific papers cited in the source more Than I trust you. And even if all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica did melt, like it did in the age of dinosaurs, sea level would not go up enough to cover all land in the world. There just isn't enough ice for that. So because you got that one simple fact wrong, I don't respect your scientific knowledge or opinions.

Answer 4

Dang straight.

And if the world wasn't flat, all the oceans would drain.

It may be true that Greenland's glaciers do not appear to be melting faster than they did a century ago, when nobody was tracking it. But 100 years ago, my father was a little boy, coal was the major source of energy in industry and oil was used where coal wasn't.

My grandfather sold firewood and coal for people to cook and heat with (Oakland Calif.), so the rapid melting might have started earlier than the popular concept. that it is just the last 80 years, not the last 100.

Answer 5

I even have considered calculations showing sea point will strengthen of cm's no longer ft. those numbers could be intense for right here reason. to be certain that ice to soften the temperature ought to upward push. because of the fact the temperature rises water vapor is formed. The evaporation finally ends up in clouds and finally rain. This has a 2 fold result to shrink the preliminary sea point strengthen: a million) the humidity result- greater water vapor is retained in the ambience and does not recycle returned into the sea as rain, 2) dispersion: the countless rain will fall on land and not be recycled. The dry arid deserts of the international would turn to lush eco-friendly jungles, plant life could flourish. greater CO2!!

Answer 6

The link connects to Senator Inhofe's anti-warming propaganda page. Despite the descriptions of the scientific papers on that web page, if you actually read the papers themselves, none of them contradict the idea that the Greenland ice sheet is contracting. So Greenland is melting. Not one paper argues that the Greenland ice sheet is in fact actually getting larger.

If the Greenland ice sheet were actually getting larger, that would be one small piece of evidence about global warming that would have to be taken into account, along with an enormous mass of other observational data. Greenland is a small part of the Earth, and it is located in a special place: near the Gulf stream, the warmest ocean current at high latitudes. One possible feedback mechanism is that fresh water deposited on the Gulf stream by Greenland melt reduces the rate of heat transfer by the Gulf stream, producing a local cooling.

Answer 7

Dalenlucy has a point, and is getting "thumbs down" for it. Here's the link to confirm that point ...

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html

There was a brief warm period during the time the Vikings colonized Greenland about 1000 years ago. However, most scientists believe this was a very short fluke, and that the earth really is warming.

Answer 8

See for yourself: Greenland Icebers ARE MELTING!!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnboundedEducation/message/177

If you have more questions, ask House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she just came back, a few days ago, from a tour of the melting glaciers in Greenland. She probably has more information. She took a group from Congress to show them how the glaciers are melting.
Too bad there is no plan to take you, or me, on such a tour, maybe she made a video clip?

Answer 9

If you want the facts...

The interior of Greenland is getting thicker because more snow is falling there than previously - increased precipitation being one of the consequences of climate change.

The periphery of Greenland is melting, this is because the edges are warmer than the interior and are being erorded by ever so slightly warmer seas.

The average net loss of ice is 60 cubic kilometres per year. Although this might sound a lot it's not much considering the land area of Greenland extends to a little over 2 million square kilometres most of which is covered by deep ice. All told there's a little over 2.5 million cubic kilometres of ice in Greenland.

The report you linked to is selective in it's reporting and could be accused of being guilty by omission of some of the most salient facts. If you're wanting an objective view of global warming and climate change this is one report which should be ignored.

Answer 10

I'm with you, chum. But I should warn you - I've been there on environmental issues for more than 50 years, one way or another, deepening and extending as our insight has grown, but I don't see much result yet. A certain amount of public concern, largely avoided. A bit of political gesturing but not enough, especially from the biggest polluters. But it doesn't require the conviction of all - only a critical mass. And with effort, we might get that, before the sky falls down. Even more than it has.