Slashdot Mirror
Once-Shrinking Greenland Glacier Is Now Growing, NASA Study Shows (nbcnews.com)
kenh shares a report from NBC News: A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds. The Jakobshavn (YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday's Nature Geoscience. Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
I takes more faith to believe in Climate Change theories than to believe in God.
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings. God is an imaginary being that only your clergy can communicate with and whose existence cannot be documented. This invisible being that only the clergy can communicate with tells them how it wants you to behave and that it will smite you and cast you into a place of eternal torture called hell whose existence cannot be documented either. Give me climate science over your imaginary friend any day.
I can also see the terminal moraine left by the glaciers in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the glacier ends now. I wonder why they likewise move higher up.
And I can see the postcards with pictures from the same spot in the 1800s, in the early 1900s, the ones from the 1950ies, 1980ies, and where the snow line ends now. I wonder why it moved higher up too.
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming, and if it were the other way (everything was getting colder locally) you would ignore it and say that it is globally that matters.
That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is, but there is also a lot of claims of stuff being related which is not (that is not to even say your local situation is not.)
But more to the point when you see a glacier going the wrong way for your theory or whatever you find a way to write it off and then quote the movement of a few buildings locally as proof positive the other way than the evidence in the article? Few people argue about global warming but they do discuss how big a deal it is and if it is caused by man. Also as with your local example of local climate change people adapt to changes.
You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
This is local temperature change you are looking at and then claiming it is global warming, and if it were the other way (everything was getting colder locally) you would ignore it and say that it is globally that matters. That is not to say there is not global climate change, there is, but there is also a lot of claims of stuff being related which is not (that is not to even say your local situation is not.) But more to the point when you see a glacier going the wrong way for your theory or whatever you find a way to write it off and then quote the movement of a few buildings locally as proof positive the other way than the evidence in the article? Few people argue about global warming but they do discuss how big a deal it is and if it is caused by man. Also as with your local example of local climate change people adapt to changes.
The changes I'm seeing all over the N-Atlantic tell me that this is more than a 'local climate change', science confirms this and we have examples of what happened earlier in the earth's history when this much carbon dioxide was de-sequestered into the atmosphere. Long story short, it wasn't pretty. Given the choice between believing thousands of scientists saying the climate is changing and a few useful idiots shilling for the fossil fuel industry who say it isn't, I'm going to pick the scientists.
I takes more faith to believe in Climate Change theories than to believe in God.
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Blah blah blah? Climate change is a lie.
No sig today...
You could've just refuted OPs points on why consensus and science are polar opposites to one another, just like OP could've left out the appeal to authority and just made that point directly.
So I do it here:
Consensus is not science. Science is never settled. Experts are good and nice for science, and it is likely they are right on the next issues, but not certain. Politics is not science, either, so large scientific organisations, ever growing aggregates of consensus, old experts and politics, will only produce an ever shrinking amount of actual science.
For as long as humanity existed, science wasn't settled on anything, experts have been wrong on almost everything and hence all consensii that ever existed have been proven wrong years, decades or millenia later.
If your only argument is "consensus" and the agreement of measurements, your scientific theory is a sad mess, because your agreement of measurements just got BTFO by another set of glacier expansion data, just as the various mountains all across the world should have been devoid of snow on their summits by now but still aren't. Unless of course growing AND shrinking glaciers are confirmations of your theory. But then the theory is not a theory but a religion. As "man made global warming" has adherents who want to ban dissent, criminalize "climate change denial" with actual prison sentences, demand that everyone makes sacrifices everywhere, and proceed to ramble about things that are unknowable and cannot be understood by laymen anywhere everm, we have a few other components of "New Religious Movements" already.
I might be wrong, but so do you. Unless you accept that you could be wrong and all the experts could be wrong if a simple observation X and Y happened tomorrow, you are not scientific. And yes, glaciers growing is a pretty strong refute of what we ever heard about what Global Warming would bring. And if climate change is the new thing, we can just give up on the science part and start praying already because climate has and always will warm and cool. Climate will keep changing until the sun burns out. If that is "proof" of your theory, good luck, because now every single observation ever can prove your point. You might as well look at chicken bones and the 50th digit of a household digital thermometer to confirm your points.
In the seventies it was common knowledge, and agreed on consensus, that the Earth was experiencing a climatic cooling period. That is still the case today.
The problem is, between then and now, climate itself became a political baseball bat. Something that changes meaning with the whim of those who weild it. Used to beat those who disagree into submission. Feck global alarmist and their facist ways.
Want to save the planet? Get EVERYONE involved, not just people who will vote the way you think they should. Seperate climate and "inevitable doom" hyperbolic BS. Teach conservation and environmental impact of ALL actions, not just man made ones. Stop with the seas rising fifty feet with polar ice melting, wiping away half the planet.
Let people build atmospheric carbon scrubbers and sequesterers to give the world enough time to turn the corner.
STOP carbon credit systemic manipulation.
And finally, grow the feck up. Shut up and start leading the way. Stop arguing about it on the internet and wasting time, energy, and fossil fuels over conversations you will not win if you don't lead the way in real life!
No it doesn't. I can measure climate change, I can observe it and I can feel it's impact on my surroundings.
Funny, it reminds me of Chris Reimer's video channel audience that is shrinking by the minute. For sure he ain't no god although he likes to think he is somehow.
A bowl of Pasta can be god if you choose to worship it. That's how religion works.
So can climate models. That's how religion works.
Ever notice how when you see the predictions from multiple hurricane projection models, there often is one or two that are utterly different from the consensus of all the other 10-15 models used to predict hurricanes?
Why don't any of the climate models predictions we see ever do that? They're all really, really close. That's preposterous. How could they ALL BE ABOUT THE SAME?
That REALLY should be causing a lot of questions to be raised about what process could be forcing all the models to agree.
But yet you worship the output from those models, and expect the rest of the human race to agree with you and expend trillions of dollars over decades to address YOUR beliefs, to the point of using non-scientific words dripping with emotional content to denounce the disbelievers: DENIALISTS!! You might as well drop the hypocrisy and just call them heretics.
You got the balls to actually look at your own beliefs critically?
climategate was nothing interesting though (except to deniers). Some emails from one research centre in the UK were leaked that indicated raw data was manipulated before being fed into models. It was then externally audited and was found to be the correct kind of manipulation for the data. I'm sure you can read whatever you want about it somewhere on the internet.
I'm sure we don't know the exact effects. We can only look back in time to see when the planet was last warmer - not good, or when it last had higher concentrations of CO2 - really not good. And now the average temp has started climbing in line with the graphs climate scientists have been producing, actually a little higher than the earlier ones.
So when should we be alarmed? If we wait until the climate is already too warm then its too late. (my reading is that it is already too late. we didn't listen and act while everything was ok, now its starting to turn bad we're starting to pretend to act, by the time we actually act we'll have written in at least the end of our current phase, possibly the end of ourselves)
No, but Christianity has the dangerous narrative built in that you can basically crap on the world because it's YOURS and when you're done with it, the end of the world is coming anyway and you go to a blissful place.
Basically it's suicide terrorism on a global scale.
See, that doesn't make sense to me. If, as the Bible says, God both created the Earth and made man in his own image to be the stewards of his creation, then by letting the world basically go to hell we aren't being very good stewards are we? We've basically failed in our reason for existence. If God tossed Adam and Eve of Eden for simply eating an apple, imagine what he would have done if they had burned the whole place down. And, since the only heaven or hell we can absolutely 100% prove exists is right here on Earth, only seems to make sense to try and make it heaven, not hell.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
So basically your beliefs are:
Glaciar shrink speeds up? Climate change is a lie.
Glaciar shrink slows down? Climate change is a lie.
Blah blah blah? Climate change is a lie.
It's not "shrinking slower", it's "growing".
I find it ironic, though, that you're accusing him of this. Read the summary. There, you'll find that:
Glacier shrinking - Bad news! It's climate change!
Glacier growing - Bad news! It's climate change!
The alarmists are the ones who do the "it doesn't matter if two opposite things happen, both are evidence that catastrophic climate change is going to destroy the world!" thing.
Do you have ESP?
1988 James Hansen New York will be Under Water in 20-30 years
https://www.salon.com/2001/10/...
1989 UN we have 12 years to save the planet
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c37...
1989 New York Times NOAA (No warming trend over the past 100 years )
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/0...
2000 Snowfalls are a thing of the past
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp...
2005 UN we will have 50 million climate refugees by 2010
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
2009 James Hansen, Obama Has 4 years to save the planet
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
2018 UN Only 12 years left to save the planet
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07...
2019 Greenland Glacier Reverses Decline.