Slashdot Mirror
Greenland Ice Sheet Not Covered In Soot
An anonymous reader writes with word of a a new study of the Greenland ice sheet led by Dartmouth adjunct assistant professor Chris Polashenski, which maintains that the darkening sensed there by satellites is not caused by dust and soot deposited by forest fires and industry, but rather by the slow degradation of the sensors on the satellites themselves.
[Polashenski] and his colleagues analyzed dozens of snow-pit samples from the 2012-2014 snowfalls across northern Greenland and compared them with samples from earlier years. The results showed no significant change in the quantity of black carbon deposited for the past 60 years or the quantity and mineralogical makeup of dust compared to the last 12,000 years, meaning that deposition of these light absorbing impurities is not a primary cause of reflectivity reduction or surface melting in the dry snow zone. Algae growth, which darkens ice, also was ruled out as a factor. Instead, the findings suggest the apparent decline in the dry snow zone's reflectivity is being caused by uncorrected degradation of sensors in NASA's aging MODIS satellites and that the declining trend will likely disappear when new measurements are reprocessed.
this is how they will explain away the other post from earlier stating that ice is growing. Blame the sensors!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
One of the most important parts of performing real science is the act of critically reviewing past results when new evidence comes to light or new observations are made, and admitting that earlier conclusions may have been completely wrong.
Now that there's evidence to suggest that at least some of their claims may be wrong, will we actually see those who support the notion of "global warming" (or "climate change" or whatever it is being called today) review their work, and admit that they were wrong if it turns out that they were? Will we see retractions and apologies from them?
...observation of the truth. You're always looking through a sensor of some type.
I live near a large lake which has a number of buoys which sense temperature and water quality. NASA (JPL) uses this "ground truth" to calibrate their satellites temperature readings, etc.
Sounds like they need to do some "ground truth" for Greenland to recalibrate things.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
These surface images do seem to show lots of " Dark Ice
Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.
NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...
Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.
I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.
Do you expect Retractions? There will be none. Part of the reasons is because those "99% of the scientists were non-existing from the beginning.
What you witnessed is a classical social manipulation, human tendency to conform and to be part of the group. If television tells you that "99% of the scientists" believe that Global warming is real, then you will probably accept additional carbon taxes easier.
The problem is that most of the scientists do agree that humanity is changing the earth. You no longer need to be a scientists to see that. For example, in Europe there are no more large populations of bears, tauruses, wolves and wild horses. These animals became extinct before industrial revolution. Last mammothes on Earth died when humans already knew how to write. Heck, some of the rhinoceros will probably be extinct this decade.
However most of discussions were about a) bankrupting US coal industry and closing coal factories (while China opens new coal electric plant almost every week) and b) imposing additional taxes on the taxpayers of industrialized nations.
Who's stupid enough to believe this paid-for study?
Acid rain is less of a problem now because we actually did something about it. Sulphur dioxide emissions in the US were cut in half resulting in less acidic rain.
Go anywhere that ice melts slowly and you will see that kink of darkness in the fall. That dark layer is covered up by snow next year.The question is whether or not the snow is darker that is was. Has that darkness been increasing? One set of photographs will not tell us that and even photographs over they years will not usually suffice as exposures, contrasts, medium will make a difference. To make a valid comparison there needs to be a common reference that is in all the pictures so that the brightness measurements can be calibrated. I seems that the satellite did not do that.
he said it does far more damage. not only focusing on a single output.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
But here is one thing *I* do know. Pollution is bad for us both economically and physically.
Then why are you not fighting pollution, instead of CO2 which plants need to live?
The whole problem I have with you WarmMongers is that you in fact have essentially ended the fight against real pollution to tilt against the CO2 windmill, all for the sake of making a few people (not you BTW) rich.
The EPA flooded a whole Colorado river system with toxins but people like you won't say boo about that because the EPA is on your "side". I'll bet you totally ignored THAT story despite countless river species outright kills and hundreds of miles of riverbank poisoned. That you dare to speak against pollution is frankly sickening.
No. The ice is thickening. Not running into the water. The edges, in fact, are retreating due to shelf collapses (which may well be the normal course of things... we don't have any kind of a baseline si that we can tell.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Picard: Are we sure the alien planet is gonna be poisoned by ass gas?
Data: Sensors confirm.
Riker: Run a level 5 diagnostic just to be sure.
Data: Running...oh yes. Sensors are old pieces of crap. Correcting...ah, nothing wrong with the planet.
Picard: Very good. I am beaming down for my vacation at Hedonism XVII. I heard they have androids in the form of ancient 21st century supermodels. Riker, you have the con. Cara, here I come!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
As it melts it gets darker. The water flows through the snow to the bottom while the impurities generally stay on the surface. When we get the next snow fall the snow is bright and white again and then as it melts it gets darker again.
Now if the second melt doesn't melt all of the second snow fall be for another fall and you dig into the snow you will see two bands where the previous melts extended to.
However if a melt melts all the way past the last snow fall you will notice the snow surface suddenly get darker when all the impurities of the layers meet.
So if the snow has been melting faster on greenland than it has been accumulating I would expect the snow to be getting darker and the darkness "jumping" each time the melting reaches then next melt band.
At least that is my experience watching our weird Ottawa winters.
Sulphur dioxide emissions in the US were cut in half resulting in less acidic rain.
Using a cap-and-trade system, as a matter of fact.
.: Semper Absurda
Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.
Your stage of denial is 3, and you are implying a appeal to nature fallacy. Here are the relevant links:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...
See here: http://grist.org/climate-energ...
Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.
... are you arguing that now? Do you think scientists are warning about human-made global warming for money and the carbon tax?
I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.
Here is some information about various cooling claims:
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Capn' Trade?
Is that the cereal that abrades off the skin on the roof of your mouth?
Woosh. Pun?
.: Semper Absurda
The global warming effect ! www.lombokwandertour.com
Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change
Yes the US government deliberately changed the terminology in the early 2000's, both phrases are technically correct but have different meanings, both phrases have been (properly) used by researchers since the 1950's. Frank Luntz (GWB's political advisor) suggested the change in official communications to sow doubt about the science in a now infamous memo. It backfired, so the GOP tried to pin the charge of "doublespeak" on the scientists.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Debunk this - smarter people with far more resources than you have tried and failed.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Greenland Ice Sheet Not Covered In Soot
Somehow read that as "Not Covered in Snot".
Seriously, is GL dead? This research coupled with some some stuff I read last week (not the anti-GL hack sites either), it appears that Global Warming is cooling down. I sense Al Gore is quietly backing down.
NASA or some other agency/political group made some alarmist statement that the ice on Greenland was getting darker without bothering to ask anyone on Greenland what they were seeing?
humans are responsible for maybe .001% of fucking up the biosphere.
Citation needed.
One volcanic eruption does far more damage than decades of human activity does.
Volcanoes worldwide, including undersea volcanoes, release between 145 and 260 million tons of CO2 every year. The Taichung Power Plant in Taiwan, the largest coal-fired power plant, releases 40 million tons of CO2 every year. That's 1 powerplant releasing between 15% to 27% of the total volcanic output of the planet. China releases over 10 billion tons of CO2 every year. That's at least 38 times as much as all volcanic activity.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
...to not know those sensors were degrading, and just goes to show that much of whats passed off as "science" is actually social manipulation.
Normally, when someone makes dire claims, and is incompetently wrong, there's some sort of consequences for the people making the claims.
I doubt this incident will sway many people, as people in general tend towards a childish conformity, and the internet helps maintain that with the same tired crap as always; superstition, fear, and rage.
A former musician, Coby Beck, writes about climate on Grist, and you want us to accept him as an expert on climate.
That is stupid.
I am a physicist, a real expert on stuff like that, and I know that the global temperature has not increased for almost 20 years.
I am a physicist, a real expert on stuff like that, and I know that the global temperature has not increased for almost 20 years.
Really? NASA Link for Average Global Temperature since 1884
Have you read this Scientific American article from 2010?
Or maybe you haven't seen this NOAA Graphic that says, "August 2015 average global land and ocean temperature was the warmest August since records began in 1880."
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?