No, they're saying solar variability over the past millennium probably has been a minor factor in northern hemisphere temperature changes compared to volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. No one would suggest the Earth as we know it could do without the Sun.
In this case it's probably just you. Rather than attack my sources why don't you attack my information?
For simple noncontroversial things like the definition of the term "firn" Wikipedia is about as good as anything. I felt the need to provide the reference since firn is not a common word in everyday conversation.
After spending a half hour searching for information about how deep the snow had to get before it became glacial ice I found lots of papers and such that said, "When the snow gets deep enough it compacts to ice from the weight of snow above it" but the National Geographic article was the first one I found that put an actual number on it so I went with it. Based on past experience I expect NG is better than the average web page in this regard.
Hey, I didn't know about it until I went and read the abstract and found (from Figure 2) that the top of the water table was only about 20 meters under the surface. Then I spent 20 minutes tracking down how deep the snow has to get before the firn turns to solid glacial ice and found it's at around 50 meters. So the water had to be above that. That's what I love about science, learning new things and increasing my understanding of the world.
Even on Greenland there isn't enough heat flux from below to cause this. The water is in the firn and generally less than 50 meters below the surface (because the firn changes to solid ice below that level from the weight of snow above it). The water is undoubtedly sitting on top of glacial ice, not bedrock (unless the depth of the snow is less than 50 m).
The water is in the firn and generally less than 50 meters deep without any ice on top that could slide off. The glacial ice starts forming at a depth of around 50 meters.
And yet despite the fact that the global cooling story made the covers of Time and Newsweek in the mid-70's, between 1965 and 1979 there were 6 times as many papers published on global warming from CO2 increases than global cooling in the scientific literature. I was born in 1952 and I don't remember being very alarmed by global cooling in the 1970's.
I believe these aquifers are sitting on top of glacial ice not rock since below about 50 meters the firn turns to solid ice from the weight of snow above. By definition the glacial ice would be below freezing.
You're going to have to find a shitload more geothermal energy than is currently evident to backup your hypothesis before it can be taken seriously. Another question to answer is why would there all of a sudden be more geothermal energy flux under the arctic ocean to cause the current melting?
There's lots of fresh water on the planet (including all the fresh water stored as ice). The problem is getting to a place where it's useful. Most places have to make do with the fresh water that's available locally. A notable exception being Southern California which imports water from the north and from the Colorado River. I doubt you'll find knowledgeable people saying fresh water would be completely gone (except perhaps for some overtaxed aquifers). Instead they are saying there will be more demand for fresh water than there is supply available to fill that demand in the future. Getting fresh water from Greenland to any place useful would be difficult and expensive.
I'm not surprised. It's science, you keep looking and you keep finding new and interesting things. It's not possible to know everything instantly and Greenland is a remote and expensive place to study.
This water is in the firn which occurs down to a depth of around 50 meters before the weight of snow above compresses it to glacial ice which can't hold water like firn. The top of the water table is generally less than 25 meters under the surface (see Figure 2) and can't be deeper than about 50. These aquifers were found in the far south of Greenland near the coast, one of the warmer areas of Greenland. It's unknown as yet if they exist elsewhere but now they know to look for them. I imagine the further north you get the more difficult it would be for them to form.
So you wouldn't likely see this except possibly at the very top of a 2,000 meter+ ice core. Most of those ice cores are drilled from far higher elevations and further north where it doesn't melt much even in summer so there is little water to begin with and in any case the colder temperatures probably cause water that forms to refreeze near the surface. In order for this water/firn mixture to coexist the temperature has to be just right and it wouldn't take much to tip the balance one way or another. If it tipped to warmer I imagine it could lead to rapid collapse of the snow field but we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
While we're at it Oregon and Washington should be split into two states on either side of the Cascade Mountains. Most eastsiders would be happy with that as currently they're pretty powerless against the large urban areas of Portland and Seattle.
Rather than Senators representing geographical areas how about if they represented the relative strength of the different political parties among the electorate? Hold a national election and for every percentage point a party gets it gets one Senator (with some method of distributing the remainders). Under such a system I'd feel free to vote for the party that best matches my political views (which wouldn't be either of the two leading parties) rather than voting defensively. It would definitely raise the status of the minor parties. I imagine the Libertarians would get 10 or 15 Senators and the Greens 5 or10, maybe 1 or 2 for the Constitution party.. It might lead to the splintering of the major parties and after an election cycle or two I doubt either would hold a simple majority any more which would force them to deal with other parties. It would be interesting to see what happens and it certainly would reflect the political views of the country as a whole better than anything we have now.
Just the papers. The purpose of peer review is sort of like a spelling and grammar check. Reviewers make sure the paper doesn't have any silly scientific mistakes and that the information is presented clearly enough for other scientists to be able to follow the work. Whether the paper ultimately passes muster comes after it is published when the general community in the field can read it and make their comments.
It's sad the misunderstanding of climate science that your post demonstrates. Modelers don't create data (at least not the data you're thinking about), they compare their model output to real world data to understand how well they model the real world.
We had plenty of Republicans in office in Oregon until the party started going crazy in the late 1980's and 1990's. I voted for many of them including Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood and a number of statewide ones whose names wouldn't be recognized elsewhere. Now all of the Republican's I might consider voting for have been driven out of the party. It's a shame really but what are you going to do?
Yes, "mostly" was probably an overstatement, but it wouldn't surprise me if the single largest group of attendees were part of the climate science community. Most of those other sections bleed into climate science in one way or another.
Agreed, increasing temperatures will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere which will have an effect. My point was that human emissions of water vapor are not an issue.
At the same time if we could do something to deliberately reduce the water vapor in the atmosphere it would quickly get replaced by evaporation. A number of years ago an atmospheric scientist did a thought experiment about what would happen if you could remove 100% of the water vapor from the atmosphere. He calculated it would take at most 60-70 days for water vapor levels to return to normal because of evaporation from the oceans.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're saying solar variability over the past millennium probably has been a minor factor in northern hemisphere temperature changes compared to volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. No one would suggest the Earth as we know it could do without the Sun.
In this case it's probably just you. Rather than attack my sources why don't you attack my information?
For simple noncontroversial things like the definition of the term "firn" Wikipedia is about as good as anything. I felt the need to provide the reference since firn is not a common word in everyday conversation.
After spending a half hour searching for information about how deep the snow had to get before it became glacial ice I found lots of papers and such that said, "When the snow gets deep enough it compacts to ice from the weight of snow above it" but the National Geographic article was the first one I found that put an actual number on it so I went with it. Based on past experience I expect NG is better than the average web page in this regard.
Hey, I didn't know about it until I went and read the abstract and found (from Figure 2) that the top of the water table was only about 20 meters under the surface. Then I spent 20 minutes tracking down how deep the snow has to get before the firn turns to solid glacial ice and found it's at around 50 meters. So the water had to be above that. That's what I love about science, learning new things and increasing my understanding of the world.
Even on Greenland there isn't enough heat flux from below to cause this. The water is in the firn and generally less than 50 meters below the surface (because the firn changes to solid ice below that level from the weight of snow above it). The water is undoubtedly sitting on top of glacial ice, not bedrock (unless the depth of the snow is less than 50 m).
The water is in the firn and generally less than 50 meters deep without any ice on top that could slide off. The glacial ice starts forming at a depth of around 50 meters.
And yet despite the fact that the global cooling story made the covers of Time and Newsweek in the mid-70's, between 1965 and 1979 there were 6 times as many papers published on global warming from CO2 increases than global cooling in the scientific literature. I was born in 1952 and I don't remember being very alarmed by global cooling in the 1970's.
I believe these aquifers are sitting on top of glacial ice not rock since below about 50 meters the firn turns to solid ice from the weight of snow above. By definition the glacial ice would be below freezing.
You're going to have to find a shitload more geothermal energy than is currently evident to backup your hypothesis before it can be taken seriously. Another question to answer is why would there all of a sudden be more geothermal energy flux under the arctic ocean to cause the current melting?
There's lots of fresh water on the planet (including all the fresh water stored as ice). The problem is getting to a place where it's useful. Most places have to make do with the fresh water that's available locally. A notable exception being Southern California which imports water from the north and from the Colorado River. I doubt you'll find knowledgeable people saying fresh water would be completely gone (except perhaps for some overtaxed aquifers). Instead they are saying there will be more demand for fresh water than there is supply available to fill that demand in the future. Getting fresh water from Greenland to any place useful would be difficult and expensive.
I'm not surprised. It's science, you keep looking and you keep finding new and interesting things. It's not possible to know everything instantly and Greenland is a remote and expensive place to study.
This water is in the firn which occurs down to a depth of around 50 meters before the weight of snow above compresses it to glacial ice which can't hold water like firn. The top of the water table is generally less than 25 meters under the surface (see Figure 2) and can't be deeper than about 50. These aquifers were found in the far south of Greenland near the coast, one of the warmer areas of Greenland. It's unknown as yet if they exist elsewhere but now they know to look for them. I imagine the further north you get the more difficult it would be for them to form.
So you wouldn't likely see this except possibly at the very top of a 2,000 meter+ ice core. Most of those ice cores are drilled from far higher elevations and further north where it doesn't melt much even in summer so there is little water to begin with and in any case the colder temperatures probably cause water that forms to refreeze near the surface. In order for this water/firn mixture to coexist the temperature has to be just right and it wouldn't take much to tip the balance one way or another. If it tipped to warmer I imagine it could lead to rapid collapse of the snow field but we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
While we're at it Oregon and Washington should be split into two states on either side of the Cascade Mountains. Most eastsiders would be happy with that as currently they're pretty powerless against the large urban areas of Portland and Seattle.
Rather than Senators representing geographical areas how about if they represented the relative strength of the different political parties among the electorate? Hold a national election and for every percentage point a party gets it gets one Senator (with some method of distributing the remainders). Under such a system I'd feel free to vote for the party that best matches my political views (which wouldn't be either of the two leading parties) rather than voting defensively. It would definitely raise the status of the minor parties. I imagine the Libertarians would get 10 or 15 Senators and the Greens 5 or10, maybe 1 or 2 for the Constitution party.. It might lead to the splintering of the major parties and after an election cycle or two I doubt either would hold a simple majority any more which would force them to deal with other parties. It would be interesting to see what happens and it certainly would reflect the political views of the country as a whole better than anything we have now.
Oops, I guess I fell victim to Poe's law.
But when you get down to it pretty much everything in science is a model of the real world in one way or another.
Maybe designating the Library of Congress as a repository for scientific data would work. They're pretty good at archiving stuff.
Just the papers. The purpose of peer review is sort of like a spelling and grammar check. Reviewers make sure the paper doesn't have any silly scientific mistakes and that the information is presented clearly enough for other scientists to be able to follow the work. Whether the paper ultimately passes muster comes after it is published when the general community in the field can read it and make their comments.
I'm perfectly aware of what hindcasting is. The results of a hindcast are never presented as real world data.
It's sad the misunderstanding of climate science that your post demonstrates. Modelers don't create data (at least not the data you're thinking about), they compare their model output to real world data to understand how well they model the real world.
Maybe they do it so you can use your mod points on one of the posts and make comments on the dupe.
Rifle?
Here's a guy that just got 28 months in jail for that solution.
NSA response: Okay, bend over and assume the position.
We had plenty of Republicans in office in Oregon until the party started going crazy in the late 1980's and 1990's. I voted for many of them including Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood and a number of statewide ones whose names wouldn't be recognized elsewhere. Now all of the Republican's I might consider voting for have been driven out of the party. It's a shame really but what are you going to do?
Yes, "mostly" was probably an overstatement, but it wouldn't surprise me if the single largest group of attendees were part of the climate science community. Most of those other sections bleed into climate science in one way or another.
Agreed, increasing temperatures will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere which will have an effect. My point was that human emissions of water vapor are not an issue.
At the same time if we could do something to deliberately reduce the water vapor in the atmosphere it would quickly get replaced by evaporation. A number of years ago an atmospheric scientist did a thought experiment about what would happen if you could remove 100% of the water vapor from the atmosphere. He calculated it would take at most 60-70 days for water vapor levels to return to normal because of evaporation from the oceans.
What Antipater said.