Greenland Ice Sheet Melting Breaks the Record a full Four Weeks Before The End of the Summer Melting Season.

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sacramento Dave
Sacramento Dave's picture

"Mellting over the Greenland ice sheet shattered the seasonal record on August 8 – a full four weeks before the close of the melting season, reports Marco Tedesco, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at The City College of New York." '''

Read More; view images and videos here: http://www.quantumday.com/2012/08/greeenland-ice-sheet-melting-faster.html#more

"The Greenland Ice Sheet is the second largest body of ice in the world. It spans over 1,710,000 square kilometers (660,235 square miles) which is around 80% of the surface of Greenland. The ice sheet is generally more than 2 km (1.24 mi) thick and over 3 km (1.86 mi) at its thickest point."  During the summer (June to September), about 50% of the ice sheet's surface naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. The melt water coming from the ice sheet that is near the coastal areas are retained by the sheet and the rest falls into the ocean." ...

...'This year, Greenland experienced extreme melting in nearly every region – the west, northwest and northeast of the continent – but especially at high elevations. In most years, the ice and snow at high elevations in southern Greenland melt for a few days at most. This year it has already gone on for two months.'

"We have to be careful because we are only talking about a couple of years and the history of Greenland happened over millennia," cautioned Professor Tedesco. "But as far as we know now, the warming that we see in the Artic is responsible for triggering processes that enhance melting and for the feedback mechanisms that keep it going. Looking over the past few years, the exception has become part of the norm."

SOURCE: The above text was copied from this source: http://www.quantumday.com/2012/08/greeenland-ice-sheet-melting-faster.html#more

 

Comments

anonymous green
I would say the problem is

I would say the problem is that the planet is shrinking. and no one could dent that it is, physically getting smaller, by increments, every day.

Here's what you would see:

Earthquakes, certainly.

Since the thermodynamic force we quayntly call gravity is inexorable, things fall in, never out, unless as the pressure underground builds, volcanoes blow up, and then, more earthquakes, and shrinkage. Either way, more pressure, more heat, more earthquakes.

The heat released as the planet shrunk, and the methane, would vaporize water and coat the upper atmosphere with greenhouse gas 200 times as powerful as CO2.

So it would rain, really hard.

Or you'd have drought, and fire.

Then would come about 1 thousand years of relative geologic calm.

Eventually, the world would shrink too much every day for much life to survive, but that's not the case, this time around.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Quote:That's a goliath year –

Quote:
That's a goliath year – the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979," said Professor Tedesco.

Alarmist...  /facepalm

anonymous green
The alarm is ringing,

The alarm is ringing, Capital1, but not the one we're told.

What would happen if the Columbia flooded after you put an giant aircraft carrier in it?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital1 wrote: Quote:That's

Capital1 wrote:

Quote:
That's a goliath year – the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979," said Professor Tedesco.

Alarmist...  /facepalm

Would you rather your smoke alarm go off once in a while for seemingly no reason or just take out the batteries because it's annoying.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
anonymous green wrote: The

anonymous green wrote:

The alarm is ringing, Capital1, but not the one we're told.

What would happen if the Columbia flooded after you put an giant aircraft carrier in it?

I would ride it down ride river pretending to be Captain Jack Sparrow.  It's a boat,  it floats.  

That is way it will also double as the regional emergency management platform. 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: Would you

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Would you rather your smoke alarm go off once in a while for seemingly no reason or just take out the batteries because it's annoying.

When my smoke alarm goes off and there is no smoke.  I check the batteries.   I don't call in a 5 alarm 911 call and mobilize the entire area on a false alarm. 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital1 wrote: Bush_Wacker

Capital1 wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Would you rather your smoke alarm go off once in a while for seemingly no reason or just take out the batteries because it's annoying.

When my smoke alarm goes off and there is no smoke.  I check the batteries.   I don't call in a 5 alarm 911 call and mobilize the entire area on a false alarm. 

Oh there's plenty of smoke and you know it.  What you don't know is the cause of the smoke.  I wouldn't risk my family because I'm not sure of the cause.  I won't gamble my family's lives like that.  I'll always err on the side of caution when it comes to them.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: Oh there's

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Oh there's plenty of smoke and you know it. 

You are sure about that? 

Quote:
I wouldn't risk my family because I'm not sure of the cause. I won't gamble my family's lives like that. I'll always err on the side of caution when it comes to them.

So you WOULD call in a false alarm, just to be on the Safe side. 

You gladly waste the time and resources of the public, possibly endangering other peoples lives, diverting those public resources to your false alarm.  For the sole reason, You want to err on the side of caution. 

Sounds like an alarmist to me.  

 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital1 wrote: Bush_Wacker

Capital1 wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:

Oh there's plenty of smoke and you know it. 

You are sure about that? 

Quote:
I wouldn't risk my family because I'm not sure of the cause. I won't gamble my family's lives like that. I'll always err on the side of caution when it comes to them.

So you WOULD call in a false alarm, just to be on the Safe side. 

You gladly waste the time and resources of the public, possibly endangering other peoples lives, diverting those public resources to your false alarm.  For the sole reason, You want to err on the side of caution. 

Sounds like an alarmist to me.  

 

A waste of public resources?  Ask any fireman what you should do if you find smoke in your home.  He'll tell you to call 911 and get the hell out of there.  You do make it clear that money is always the paramount issue.  Not safety, not family.  Money.  Money and resources trumps the safety of your family.  Money and resources trump the safety of the world.  We'll take our chances with global warming and climate change because the alternatives just cost too much money and aren't fair to the corporations.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: A waste of

Bush_Wacker wrote:

A waste of public resources?  Ask any fireman what you should do if you find smoke in your home.  He'll tell you to call 911 and get the hell out of there.  You do make it clear that money is always the paramount issue.  Not safety, not family.  Money.  Money and resources trumps the safety of your family.  Money and resources trump the safety of the world.  We'll take our chances with global warming and climate change because the alternatives just cost too much money and aren't fair to the corporations.

Not all smoke is created equal.  Clearly you've never accidentally fired off a Halloween smoke machine inside your house.  Burnt toast, Made a shit load of Bacon, Had a small grease fire.  Or any of the other reasons there are to NOT call 911. 

As I said,  ARE YOU SURE THERE IS SMOKE?  This story about Greenland is NOT smoke. 

stwo
stwo's picture
Quote:What would happen if

Quote:
What would happen if the Columbia flooded after you put an giant aircraft carrier in it?

Regular aircraft carrier's draft is about 40 feet, I imagine a giant aircraft carrier would have an even deeper draft.  Columbia River is 20-30 feet deep.   OK, so the carrier would not fit in the river, but I need more info before I can answer the question.  Is the flooding upstream or downstream of the giant aircraft carrier?

 

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital1 wrote: Bush_Wacker

Capital1 wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:

A waste of public resources?  Ask any fireman what you should do if you find smoke in your home.  He'll tell you to call 911 and get the hell out of there.  You do make it clear that money is always the paramount issue.  Not safety, not family.  Money.  Money and resources trumps the safety of your family.  Money and resources trump the safety of the world.  We'll take our chances with global warming and climate change because the alternatives just cost too much money and aren't fair to the corporations.

Not all smoke is created equal.  Clearly you've never accidentally fired off a Halloween smoke machine inside your house.  Burnt toast, Made a shit load of Bacon, Had a small grease fire.  Or any of the other reasons there are to NOT call 911. 

As I said,  ARE YOU SURE THERE IS SMOKE?  This story about Greenland is NOT smoke. 

It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775

Capital1
Capital1's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: It is

Bush_Wacker wrote:

It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775

Too bad Patrick Henry isn't here to answer the questions posed to you.   If you have a wigi board,  maybe we can ask him. 

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
http://topics.nytimes.com/top

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Shows some ARE concerned about the polar caps. The navy has shown some interest in the last year or two. Probably to pick a fight over the deep drilling potential.