info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Human-caused melting of Greenland ice is changing ocean circulation and Earth's gravitational field
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Desertphile
Feb 10, 2016, 4:53:30 PM2/10/16
to
Human-caused melting of Greenland ice is changing ocean circulation and
Earth's gravitational field
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/melting-greenland-ice-changing-ocean-circulation-earth-s-gravitational-field-1.3437904
Disappearing ice cap wreaks havoc on the ocean's very structure,
scientists agree
By Sima Sahar Zerehi, CBC News Posted: Feb 08, 2016 4:30 AM CT Last
Updated: Feb 08, 2016 12:46 PM CT
The melting of the Greenland ice sheet due to climate change is having an
impact on ocean circulation and rising sea levels, according to new
studies from university researchers across North America.
"It was well known that Greenland's ice was melting, it was well known
that that melting was accelerating, and it was well known that extra
melting was changing the salinity of the North Atlantic Ocean," said Tim
Dixon, a Canadian professor in the department of geophysics at the
University of South Florida, who recently co-authored a study published in
Nature Communications.
In Iqaluit, icebreaker paves way for season's supply ships
Inuit, environmentalists lobby for action at Paris climate conference
Dixon said that when ice melts, it deposits fresh water into the ocean
that dilutes the salt in the North Atlantic.
"What was not known is what effect if any that would have on ocean
circulation," he said.
Ocean circulation graphic
'In the extreme case of a breakdown in this global ocean circulation
pattern, equatorial regions could become much hotter than they are today
and polar regions could become much colder than they are today, and
significant fractions of the globe might become unlivable,' said
University of South Florida's Tim Dixon. (Tim Dixon)
Previous studies had suggested that the impact of the melting Greenland
ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next
50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the
North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean
circulation.
"The accelerated melting of Greenland is adding so much fresh water to the
North Atlantic that it's starting to affect the basic ocean structure in
the Labrador Sea."
But it's not just the Labrador sea that is affected.
"We think those changes are big enough that they're starting to affect the
overall global circulation pattern of the ocean," Dixon said.
'Fractions of the globe might become unlivable'
Altering the circulation pattern of the ocean can have drastic long-term
implications, Dixon said.
"In the extreme case of a breakdown in this global ocean circulation
pattern, equatorial regions could become much hotter than they are today
and polar regions could become much colder than they are today, and
significant fractions of the globe might become unlivable."
River exiting from beneath the ice sheet near Kangerlussuaq
'The rate of mass loss that the ice sheet is now exhibiting post 2010, is
somewhere in the neighbourhood of three times higher than the rate of mass
loss prior to the 1980s,' said Colgan. (William Colgan)
These changes are some of the first alarming signals of the possible
effects of climate change, Dixon said.
"This is the first hint that these effects are starting a bit faster than
people had imagined and implying that we need to get our act together and
do something about this," he said.
"Which means we have to stop putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere."
Ice melt changing earth's gravity field
William Colgan of York University in Toronto has also been studying the
rate of the Greenland ice melt and its effects on the ocean. In a recent
study, published in the journal Science, he looked at historical data and
compared it to new information gathered from expeditions in 2012, 2013 and
2015.
William Colgan
'Iqaluit will not be flooded out by rising sea level but to have the
harbour in Iqaluit, which is already really shallow get shallower at 1 cm
per year going forward that can also be a very damaging sequence of sea
level change,' said York University’s William Colgan. (William Colgan)
"The ice sheet didn't really start to accelerate and lose a lot more mass
until the year 2000," he said.
"The rate of mass loss that the ice sheet is now exhibiting, post 2010, is
somewhere in the neighbourhood of three times higher than the rate of mass
loss prior to the 1980s."
Greenland is losing about 8,300 tonnes of ice per second each day — ice
that is melting on land and running into the water, as well as icebergs
that are being discharged into Baffin Bay, said Colgan.
"That's a rapid, rapid mass loss that's occurring in Greenland right now
and it's actually changing the Earth's gravity field so quickly that we
can detect it with satellite."
Colgan said that just like the moon pulls tides around the Earth with its
gravity, by being relatively massive, Greenland pulls water towards it. As
Greenland gets smaller, the ocean water flows farther away towards the
equator, in what is called a gravitational far-field.
Implications for Nunavut
Icebreaker approaches bay
Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around 1
centimetre per year, an effect that can be as damaging as sea level rise.
(Sima Sahar Zerehi/CBC)
Colgan said this change will have implications for places close to
Greenland like Nunavut.
"Actually close to Greenland, sea level rise is negative,or sea level is
dropping, in part because the gravitational field is weakening so quickly
that the water in the ocean is migrating to more gravitationally massive
places on Earth."
Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around
one centimetre per year, an effect that can be as damaging as sea level
rise.
"Iqaluit will not be flooded out by rising sea level but to have the
harbour in Iqaluit, which is already really shallow, get shallower at one
centimetre per year going forward, that can also be a very damaging
sequence of sea level change," he said.
The melting of Greenland ice also produces more icebergs which are being
discharged from the glaciers on land.
"There's actually more icebergs now being spat out into Baffin Bay and
floating around as potential navigation hazards than there were 50 or even
10 years ago," said Colgan.
--
USA: where carrying unconcealed assault rifles is legal, but
carrying unconcealed boobs can get you time in jail and a $$$ fine.
Earth's gravitational field
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/melting-greenland-ice-changing-ocean-circulation-earth-s-gravitational-field-1.3437904
Disappearing ice cap wreaks havoc on the ocean's very structure,
scientists agree
By Sima Sahar Zerehi, CBC News Posted: Feb 08, 2016 4:30 AM CT Last
Updated: Feb 08, 2016 12:46 PM CT
The melting of the Greenland ice sheet due to climate change is having an
impact on ocean circulation and rising sea levels, according to new
studies from university researchers across North America.
"It was well known that Greenland's ice was melting, it was well known
that that melting was accelerating, and it was well known that extra
melting was changing the salinity of the North Atlantic Ocean," said Tim
Dixon, a Canadian professor in the department of geophysics at the
University of South Florida, who recently co-authored a study published in
Nature Communications.
In Iqaluit, icebreaker paves way for season's supply ships
Inuit, environmentalists lobby for action at Paris climate conference
Dixon said that when ice melts, it deposits fresh water into the ocean
that dilutes the salt in the North Atlantic.
"What was not known is what effect if any that would have on ocean
circulation," he said.
Ocean circulation graphic
'In the extreme case of a breakdown in this global ocean circulation
pattern, equatorial regions could become much hotter than they are today
and polar regions could become much colder than they are today, and
significant fractions of the globe might become unlivable,' said
University of South Florida's Tim Dixon. (Tim Dixon)
Previous studies had suggested that the impact of the melting Greenland
ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next
50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the
North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean
circulation.
"The accelerated melting of Greenland is adding so much fresh water to the
North Atlantic that it's starting to affect the basic ocean structure in
the Labrador Sea."
But it's not just the Labrador sea that is affected.
"We think those changes are big enough that they're starting to affect the
overall global circulation pattern of the ocean," Dixon said.
'Fractions of the globe might become unlivable'
Altering the circulation pattern of the ocean can have drastic long-term
implications, Dixon said.
"In the extreme case of a breakdown in this global ocean circulation
pattern, equatorial regions could become much hotter than they are today
and polar regions could become much colder than they are today, and
significant fractions of the globe might become unlivable."
River exiting from beneath the ice sheet near Kangerlussuaq
'The rate of mass loss that the ice sheet is now exhibiting post 2010, is
somewhere in the neighbourhood of three times higher than the rate of mass
loss prior to the 1980s,' said Colgan. (William Colgan)
These changes are some of the first alarming signals of the possible
effects of climate change, Dixon said.
"This is the first hint that these effects are starting a bit faster than
people had imagined and implying that we need to get our act together and
do something about this," he said.
"Which means we have to stop putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere."
Ice melt changing earth's gravity field
William Colgan of York University in Toronto has also been studying the
rate of the Greenland ice melt and its effects on the ocean. In a recent
study, published in the journal Science, he looked at historical data and
compared it to new information gathered from expeditions in 2012, 2013 and
2015.
William Colgan
'Iqaluit will not be flooded out by rising sea level but to have the
harbour in Iqaluit, which is already really shallow get shallower at 1 cm
per year going forward that can also be a very damaging sequence of sea
level change,' said York University’s William Colgan. (William Colgan)
"The ice sheet didn't really start to accelerate and lose a lot more mass
until the year 2000," he said.
"The rate of mass loss that the ice sheet is now exhibiting, post 2010, is
somewhere in the neighbourhood of three times higher than the rate of mass
loss prior to the 1980s."
Greenland is losing about 8,300 tonnes of ice per second each day — ice
that is melting on land and running into the water, as well as icebergs
that are being discharged into Baffin Bay, said Colgan.
"That's a rapid, rapid mass loss that's occurring in Greenland right now
and it's actually changing the Earth's gravity field so quickly that we
can detect it with satellite."
Colgan said that just like the moon pulls tides around the Earth with its
gravity, by being relatively massive, Greenland pulls water towards it. As
Greenland gets smaller, the ocean water flows farther away towards the
equator, in what is called a gravitational far-field.
Implications for Nunavut
Icebreaker approaches bay
Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around 1
centimetre per year, an effect that can be as damaging as sea level rise.
(Sima Sahar Zerehi/CBC)
Colgan said this change will have implications for places close to
Greenland like Nunavut.
"Actually close to Greenland, sea level rise is negative,or sea level is
dropping, in part because the gravitational field is weakening so quickly
that the water in the ocean is migrating to more gravitationally massive
places on Earth."
Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around
one centimetre per year, an effect that can be as damaging as sea level
rise.
"Iqaluit will not be flooded out by rising sea level but to have the
harbour in Iqaluit, which is already really shallow, get shallower at one
centimetre per year going forward, that can also be a very damaging
sequence of sea level change," he said.
The melting of Greenland ice also produces more icebergs which are being
discharged from the glaciers on land.
"There's actually more icebergs now being spat out into Baffin Bay and
floating around as potential navigation hazards than there were 50 or even
10 years ago," said Colgan.
--
USA: where carrying unconcealed assault rifles is legal, but
carrying unconcealed boobs can get you time in jail and a $$$ fine.
Chom Noamsky
Feb 10, 2016, 6:28:30 PM2/10/16
to
On 2/10/2016 1:53 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> Previous studies had suggested that the impact of the melting Greenland
> ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next
> 50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the
> North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean
> circulation.
In other words, the science wasn't settled.
> Previous studies had suggested that the impact of the melting Greenland
> ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next
> 50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the
> North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean
> circulation.
Better study it for another 50-100 years and be certain.
Unum
Feb 10, 2016, 7:50:16 PM2/10/16
to
On 2/10/2016 5:28 PM, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 1:53 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>
>> Previous studies had suggested that the impact of the melting Greenland
>> ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next
>> 50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the
>> North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean
>> circulation.
>
> In other words, the science wasn't settled.
Previously. Now there's the definite evidence that it isn't minimal.
> On 2/10/2016 1:53 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>
>> Previous studies had suggested that the impact of the melting Greenland
>> ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next
>> 50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the
>> North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean
>> circulation.
>
> In other words, the science wasn't settled.
> Better study it for another 50-100 years and be certain.
>>>Ashton Crusher
Feb 10, 2016, 8:11:49 PM2/10/16
to
change and nothing we do is going to stop it. What portion of the
change is due to humans is unknown and probably unknowable. It's
likely to not be a very large portion.
Message has been deleted
AlleyCat
Feb 10, 2016, 9:42:17 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:53:28 -0700, Desertphile says...
> Human-caused melting of Greenland ice is changing ocean circulation and
> Earth's gravitational field
immediately believe them? What a little brain-washable child.
Oh, the ice is melting... no shit, Sherlock... Earth has had times, quite
recently, when there was NO ice on Greenland. Wanna see a map? Fine.
http://www.cosmographicresearch.org/Images/glacial_maximum_map2.jpg
HOW did Greenland have NO ice, but North America was COVERED in it? WHERE,
oh where, did the ice GO!? What exactly caused the ice to melt LONG before
there ever was an Exxon? Mammoth farts?
Look at Greenland. Where is the ice that supposed to be covering
GREENLAND? WHERE did all that ice go!!??
The earth has been covered by tropical forests, ice sheets AND barren
deserts. Yeah, and so?
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2mht209&s=8
The earth has been covered by tropical forests, ice
sheets AND barren deserts... are you REALLY stupid enough NOT to know the
Earth's history, or are you just playing dumb to get your way?
http://i.imgur.com/O0LnmCc.jpg
Catoni
Feb 10, 2016, 9:45:04 PM2/10/16
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 4:53:30 PM UTC-5, Desertphile wrote:
> Human-caused melting of Greenland ice is changing ocean circulation and
> Earth's gravitational field
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/melting-greenland-ice-changing-ocean-circulation-earth-s-gravitational-field-1.3437904
>
> Disappearing ice cap wreaks havoc on the ocean's very structure,
> scientists agree
> By Sima Sahar Zerehi, CBC News Posted: Feb 08, 2016 4:30 AM CT Last
> Updated: Feb 08, 2016 12:46 PM CT
> William Colgan of York University in Toronto has also been studying the
> rate of the Greenland ice melt and its effects on the ocean. In a recent
> study, published in the journal Science, he looked at historical data and
> compared it to new information gathered from expeditions in 2012, 2013 and
> 2015.
If you are a socialist or Marxist-Leninist... that's the university for you.
> Colgan said that just like the moon pulls tides around the Earth with its
> gravity, by being relatively massive, Greenland pulls water towards it. As
> Greenland gets smaller, the ocean water flows farther away towards the
> equator, in what is called a gravitational far-field.
> Implications for Nunavut
> Icebreaker approaches bay
>
> Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around 1
> centimetre per year, an effect that can be as damaging as sea level rise.
> (Sima Sahar Zerehi/CBC)
You just can't make this shit up...
> "Actually close to Greenland, sea level rise is negative,or sea level is
> dropping, in part because the gravitational field is weakening so quickly
> that the water in the ocean is migrating to more gravitationally massive
> places on Earth."
>
> Colgan said the sea level has been decreasing in Frobisher Bay at around
> one centimetre per year, an effect that can be as damaging as sea level
> rise.
Amazing...
We're doomed...... doomed I say.... Repent Now.... Jesus is coming again soon... LOL
AlleyCat
Feb 10, 2016, 9:45:27 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:50:12 -0600, Unum says...
> Previously. Now there's the definite evidence that it isn't minimal.
Earth... WHERE on Earth, did it GO, without Exxon pollution!!?
****
> Human-caused melting of Greenland ice is changing ocean circulation and
> Earth's gravitational field
AlleyCat
Feb 10, 2016, 10:20:00 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:11:45 -0700, >>>Ashton Crusher says...
> These idiots can study it all they want. The climate IS going to
> change and nothing we do is going to stop it.
> is unknown and probably unknowable.
It's "knowable", it's just not admitable or provable, so "it" will keep on
getting funded until the money runs out, and after nothing BUT spending
has been accomplished.
The whole AGW/Climate Change bullshit, is predicated on power, influence,
control and money... that's ALL.
> What portion of the change is due to humans? It's
> likely to not be a very large portion.
"Humans" contribute a whopping total of about 6% to 9% of the total CO²
going into the atmosphere. THAT doesn't matter anyway... the pittance of
390ppm isn't enough to do any harm.
REAL scientist say that CO² has NEVER been a factor in climate change
before, why now?
Sorry to have to include the liar Al Gore in this post, but to debunk his
crap, we have to show his crap.
http://tinypic.com/r/2vmwntd/9
http://tinypic.com/r/241nkh2/8
http://tinypic.com/r/t8m99e/8
Unum
Feb 10, 2016, 10:24:56 PM2/10/16
to
On 2/10/2016 8:45 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:50:12 -0600, Unum says...
>
>> Previously. Now there's the definite evidence that it isn't minimal.
>
> How about THIS "minimal"... as in NONE? NO ice on Greenland. HOW on
> Earth... WHERE on Earth, did it GO, without Exxon pollution!!?
That's been explained to you several times, hasn't it.
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:50:12 -0600, Unum says...
>
>> Previously. Now there's the definite evidence that it isn't minimal.
>
> How about THIS "minimal"... as in NONE? NO ice on Greenland. HOW on
> Earth... WHERE on Earth, did it GO, without Exxon pollution!!?
AlleyCat
Feb 10, 2016, 11:31:55 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:24:53 -0600, Unum says...
do, and they say you're an idiot. LOL Do you want their addresses?
I'm sorry... I forgot again... what is your Ph.D. in? Where did you go to
school? How long have you been a professor?
I noticed... NONE of you EXPERTS in the climate sciences EVER dispute what
these people say, you just keep on screeching that they're shills for the
oil companies. Prove it. Pussy.
Please explain how and why THESE Ph.D.s would LIE when they say CO² is NOT
the "driving force" of temperature and climate change.
Dr. Ian Clark, Ph.D.
Dr. Piers Corbin, Ph.D.
Dr. John Christy, Ph.D. LEAD Author, IPCC
Dr. Philip Stott, Ph.D.
Dr. Paul Reiter, Ph.D., IPCC and Pasteur Institute, Paris
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. - IPCC and M.I.T
I will supply you with email addresses, if you have the balls to debate
them.
Are YOU a Ph.D. in either:
Astronomy
Astrophysics
Atmospheric Science
Biochemistry
Biogeography
Climatology
CO² Biology
Cosmology
Earth Sciences
Ecology
Environmental Science
Geochemistry
Geodynamics
Geology
Geophysics
Meteorology
Nuclear Physics
Oceanography
Paleoclimatology
Paleogeophysics
Physical Chemistry
Physics
Space and Remote Sensing Sciences
Theoretical Physics
Once last time... are you willing to call Ian Clark, Ph.D. a liar?
Really... I'll give you his email address if you can make a case for CO²,
which is such a low percentage, that it can't POSSIBLY make the difference
you think it does, over water vapour and methane and surface-level ozone
and nitrous oxides and fluorinated gases and............................
http://tinypic.com/r/1z6yza0/9
CO² is too minute to be effective.
http://tinypic.com/r/1z6yza0/9
Go ahead... call them deniers... they are. They deny that man is
responsible, with his 6% contribution to CO² levels, for climate change
and that global catastrophes are imminent BECAUSE of this puny rise in
CO².
They KNOW what's going on, maybe just a little more than YOU and Obama.
What Ph.D. do YOU have... I forgot.
> > The Sun is driving climate
> > change.
>
> Utter garbage.
You're an idiot.
http://tinypic.com/m/j9n0c7/4
Dr. Philip Stott, Ph.D. - Dept. of Biogeography, University of London.
What Ph.D. do YOU have... I forgot.
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Skeptical science? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ya... REAL scientists over
there, boy.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.global-warming/Skeptical
$20Science$20is$20a$20climate$20alarmist
$20website|sort:relevance/alt.global-warming/1J-Qa1Gwuvw/XdvG9UBjGAAJ
> Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However
> global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going
> in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of
> recent global warming.
You can't expect the Earth's temperatures to follow the Sun's output, to
the day, moron... things take time, JUST as rising CO² levels FOLLOW
warming trends.
http://tinypic.com/r/241nkh2/8
Here is a great explanation for you deniers.
http://tinypic.com/r/15gv2a9/8
http://tinypic.com/r/15gv2a9/8
CO² has NEVER...
There's no evidence at all from Earth's long climate history that CO2 has
ever determined global temperatures.
Utter truth, with Ph.D.'s to back it up... what do YOU have, who says
differently? The 97%?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
More SCIENTISTS who think AGW is a hoax.
David Bellamy, botanist.
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.
Dr. Piers Corbyn, Ph.D., owner of the business WeatherAction which makes
weather forecasts.
http://tinypic.com/r/2nqxsid/8
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences,
Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for
Urban Science and Progress at New York University
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National
Academy of Sciences
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement.
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics
Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA
Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003)
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of
Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the
Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National
University
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa,
research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and
soil science
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of
London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate
in chemistry
***********************
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural
processes.
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be
attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on
climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical
articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the
Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography
at the University of Winnipeg
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James
Cook University
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and
Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics
and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington
University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology
Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy;
emeritus professor, Princeton University
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the
University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World
Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center
for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of
Missouri
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil
Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton
University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of
Adelaide.
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty
member at the University of California, San Diego
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie
University and University of Colorado
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke
University
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate
science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of
Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon
State University
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University
of Ottawa
****************************
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the
observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director
of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks.
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at
Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Pål Brekke, solar astrophysicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth
System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville,
contributor to several IPCC reports.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute and a Nobel laureate.
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa
County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University
of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
***********************************
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of
little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United
States Department of the Interior
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State
University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation
Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research
professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940-2007), retired New Zealand MetService
Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University
of Wyoming
Reid Bryson (1920-2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine
interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural
processes:
Robert Jastrow (1925-2008), American astronomer, physicist and
cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and
William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute to
counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars
Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took
the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused
by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides
were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus
view of anthropogenic global warming. Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was
experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be
natural variation.
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923-2011), Emeritus Professor of Physics and
former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American
Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the
money flood" of government grants.
Frederick Seitz (1911-2008), solid-state physicist and former president of
the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall
Institute in 1984.
Unum
Feb 11, 2016, 12:10:38 AM2/11/16
to
On 2/10/2016 10:31 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:24:53 -0600, Unum says...
>
>>
>> On 2/10/2016 8:45 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:50:12 -0600, Unum says...
>>>
>>>> Previously. Now there's the definite evidence that it isn't minimal.
>>>
>>> How about THIS "minimal"... as in NONE? NO ice on Greenland. HOW on
>>> Earth... WHERE on Earth, did it GO, without Exxon pollution!!?
>>
>> That's been explained to you several times, hasn't it.
>
> Nope... not by ANYONE with any credibility. But I HAVE contacted those who
> do, and they say you're an idiot. LOL Do you want their addresses?
A long list of people who could easily tell you why there was
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:24:53 -0600, Unum says...
>
>>
>> On 2/10/2016 8:45 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:50:12 -0600, Unum says...
>>>
>>>> Previously. Now there's the definite evidence that it isn't minimal.
>>>
>>> How about THIS "minimal"... as in NONE? NO ice on Greenland. HOW on
>>> Earth... WHERE on Earth, did it GO, without Exxon pollution!!?
>>
>> That's been explained to you several times, hasn't it.
>
> Nope... not by ANYONE with any credibility. But I HAVE contacted those who
> do, and they say you're an idiot. LOL Do you want their addresses?
no ice on Greenland at various points in time. Why don't you
ask one of them?
AlleyCat
Feb 11, 2016, 1:50:08 AM2/11/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:10:35 -0600, Unum says...
> A long list of people who could easily tell you why there was
> no ice on Greenland at various points in time. Why don't you
> ask one of them?
Well, how did it get there, and how did it go away? Tell me, Professor...
please?
While you're at it... tell us how today's warming is a "different"
warming, than say, 700 years ago during the Medieval Warm period or maybe
you can tell us about the Holocene Maximum Epoch from 7000 years ago that
lasted for 3000 years, about 2964 years longer than our current trend.
Please?
I'll keep trusting MY guys, not yours... they're LIARS.
> That's been explained to you several times, hasn't it.
Nope... not by ANYONE with any credibility. But I HAVE contacted those who
do, and they say you're an idiot. LOL Do you want their addresses?
Catoni
Feb 11, 2016, 1:08:11 PM2/11/16
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 12:10:38 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
> A long list of people who could easily tell you why there was
> no ice on Greenland at various points in time. Why don't you
> ask one of them?
So tell us.... was it hell on Earth every time that Greenland was ice free ? ?
> A long list of people who could easily tell you why there was
> no ice on Greenland at various points in time. Why don't you
> ask one of them?
Desertphile
Feb 11, 2016, 10:11:50 PM2/11/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:28:29 -0800, Chom Noamsky <chomch...@chom.chom>
wrote:
wrote:
> > Previous studies had suggested that the impact of the melting Greenland
> > ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next
> > 50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the
> > North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean
> > circulation.
> >
> > ice on North Atlantic circulation would be minimal, at least for the next
> > 50 years, Dixon said, because the amount of fresh water going into the
> > North Atlantic was thought to be too small to disrupt the ocean
> > circulation.
> >
> In other words, the science wasn't settled.
Huh?
Unum
Feb 11, 2016, 10:50:04 PM2/11/16
to
On 2/11/2016 12:49 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:10:35 -0600, Unum says...
>
>> A long list of people who could easily tell you why there was
>> no ice on Greenland at various points in time. Why don't you
>> ask one of them?
>
> Who?
Ask any one of those fringe nutjobs on your list.
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:10:35 -0600, Unum says...
>
>> A long list of people who could easily tell you why there was
>> no ice on Greenland at various points in time. Why don't you
>> ask one of them?
>
> Who?
> Well, how did it get there, and how did it go away? Tell me, Professor...
> please?
Unum
Feb 11, 2016, 10:58:02 PM2/11/16
to
than today. Some little fruitcake sitting inland in Canada might think
it was peachy keen.
Catoni
Feb 12, 2016, 12:25:28 AM2/12/16
to
You exaggerated again... if all of Greenland melted... (that would take a few thousand years) sea level would only rise 20 feet... if you're lucky.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago when the sea level was about 350 feet lower, with forests growing on the Continental Shelves and people were walking from what is now France to what is now England through the forest that was growing in the English Channel.
AlleyCat
Feb 12, 2016, 1:10:51 AM2/12/16
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:25:27 -0800 (PST), Catoni says...
> > Depends on whether or not you like sea levels at least 25 feet higher
> > than today. Some little fruitcake sitting inland in Canada might think
> > it was peachy keen.
>
>
> Funny how you say "...at least 25 feet..."
>
> You exaggerated again... if all of Greenland melted... (that would take a few thousand years) sea level would only rise 20 feet... if you're lucky.
>
> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
>
> There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago when the sea level was about 350 feet lower, with forests growing on the Continental Shelves and people were walking from what is now France to what is now England through the forest that was growing in the English Channel.
invaders and conquerers, The 2nd Native Americans, crossed to get here.
Unum
Feb 12, 2016, 9:18:25 AM2/12/16
to
On 2/11/2016 11:25 PM, Catoni wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 10:58:02 PM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>> On 2/11/2016 12:08 PM, Catoni wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 12:10:38 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>>>
>>>> A long list of people who could easily tell you why there was
>>>> no ice on Greenland at various points in time. Why don't you
>>>> ask one of them?
>>>
>>>
>>> So tell us.... was it hell on Earth every time that Greenland was ice free ? ?
>>
>> Depends on whether or not you like sea levels at least 25 feet higher
>> than today. Some little fruitcake sitting inland in Canada might think
>> it was peachy keen.
>
>
> Funny how you say "...at least 25 feet..."
>
> You exaggerated again... if all of Greenland melted... (that would take a few thousand years) sea level would only rise 20 feet... if you're lucky.
Now you want to quibble about the exact number of feet, hilarious!
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 10:58:02 PM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>> On 2/11/2016 12:08 PM, Catoni wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 12:10:38 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>>>
>>>> A long list of people who could easily tell you why there was
>>>> no ice on Greenland at various points in time. Why don't you
>>>> ask one of them?
>>>
>>>
>>> So tell us.... was it hell on Earth every time that Greenland was ice free ? ?
>>
>> Depends on whether or not you like sea levels at least 25 feet higher
>> than today. Some little fruitcake sitting inland in Canada might think
>> it was peachy keen.
>
>
> Funny how you say "...at least 25 feet..."
>
> You exaggerated again... if all of Greenland melted... (that would take a few thousand years) sea level would only rise 20 feet... if you're lucky.
> https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
>
> There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago
Catoni
Feb 12, 2016, 9:10:08 PM2/12/16
to
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:18:25 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
> > There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago
>
> Except you can't identify any of them, lieboy.
How about... everyone of you and your comrades here, smegma breath.. .......
> > There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago
>
> Except you can't identify any of them, lieboy.
If it was 20,000 years ago and you and your Alarmist pals were there and saw great ice sheets melting back....the Global Warming of that time... the sea rising 20mm - 60mm per year... drowning the vast forests and hunting grounds on what today are the continental shelves... you would have pissed and shit yourselves in fear, and offered up virgin girl sacrifices to your gods to try to stop it.
Unum
Feb 13, 2016, 12:47:59 AM2/13/16
to
On 2/12/2016 8:10 PM, Catoni wrote:
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:18:25 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>
>>> There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago
>>
>> Except you can't identify any of them, lieboy.
>
>
> How about... everyone of you and your comrades here, smegma breath.. .......
So you can't cite a single instance where anyone has stated that.
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:18:25 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>
>>> There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago
>>
>> Except you can't identify any of them, lieboy.
>
>
> How about... everyone of you and your comrades here, smegma breath.. .......
Catoni
Feb 13, 2016, 2:47:32 PM2/13/16
to
Knowing how you idiots are reacting to the little warming we've had since 1850..... it logically follows that if you and your pals were back 18,000 years ago witnessing the great ice sheets retreating and the continental shelves and forests being lost under seas rising at 20 - 60 mm per year...
.... then you and your pals would certainly freak out and start sacrificing young virgin girls to your gods and goddesses in a vain attempt to stop it from happening.
Your first thought would be that the tribes must have offended the gods in some way and everyone was being punished.
It's common sense. Do you understand that Mr. Troll ? ?
Common sense does not have to be cited.
Unum
Feb 14, 2016, 2:45:08 PM2/14/16
to
On 2/13/2016 1:47 PM, Catoni wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:47:59 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>> On 2/12/2016 8:10 PM, Catoni wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:18:25 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago
>>>>
>>>> Except you can't identify any of them, lieboy.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about... everyone of you and your comrades here, smegma breath.. .......
>>
>> So you can't cite a single instance where anyone has stated that.
>
>
> If I was to say that the Earth orbits the Sun.... would I have to offer you a cite ? ?
Just come up with a cite that supports your claim, you lying moron.
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:47:59 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>> On 2/12/2016 8:10 PM, Catoni wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:18:25 AM UTC-5, Unum wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's few nut jobs in this group that wish it was a lot cooler and we were back in the last Glacial Period 20,000 years ago
>>>>
>>>> Except you can't identify any of them, lieboy.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about... everyone of you and your comrades here, smegma breath.. .......
>>
>> So you can't cite a single instance where anyone has stated that.
>
>
> If I was to say that the Earth orbits the Sun.... would I have to offer you a cite ? ?
0 new messages