If you believe in GW then you'll probably dismiss this story, or say it just supports your position. So here it is, you be the judge! A newly released study of 247 of the 350 glaciers on Disko island off Greenland's coast found 173 of those glaciers have been shrinking for the past century "suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming". What I found interesting is that the researches say they studied 95% of the area covered by glaciers on Disko. So wouldn't that mean they should have studied 95% of the 350 glaciers or 315 instead of only 247? If 247 glaciers are on 95% of Disko island that means the remaining 103 glaciers are on just 5% of Disko they didn't cover?
Ok, this aside....it would be interesting to know if 173 glaciers on this island have been shrinking for over 100 years what's up with the other 74 in the study holding steady? Guess what, the article says that they also identified that there were more "galloping glaciers" than had been previously estimated....75 of them!
This is getting interesting....173 glaciers are shrinking for 100 years at around 8 meters a year...but the study also found 75 glaciers caled galloping glaciers that have growth spurts of several years (lets say 2) at a rate of 50 meters day..while most of the time growing at 20 meters a year. So 173 glaciers shrunk over 100 years by 800 meters each. But 75 galloping glaciers each grew as much as 36500 meters in the 2 years of galloping growth, and another 1960 meters for the 98 years of normal 20m/yr growth for a whopping 38460 meters of growth!!!!!!
I realize I'm averaging things here, and that all glaciers are not of the same size...but it sure would be interesting to see if the tremendous growth of the 75 growing glaciers balanced, or surpased, the lost ice of the slowly shrinking ones!
Update: It's always interesting to find a study, or a scientist, that refers to something as a certainty that is in fact as of yet unproven theory. Here's an example of your findings not fitting your theory so you claim what you found is caused by the theory. So apparently now global warming is also to blaim for more ice! And note the last quoted sentence of the researcher and how he/she refers to global warming as if it's a certainty.
5 comments:
Mov....you're not rational at all...global warming caused by human activity has not been proven...might it be true? yes, but it's not a certainty...the quote you echoed isn't proof, it's simply someone's statement and nothing more...FYI, just my wife a brand new big ol V8 powered SUV!
No, the point of mentioning the SUV is to point out people still buy them...not because, like you assume, we don't care about the environment but because in this case we don't have blind faith. See my bet is MOV you're not religious....most who are big GW supporters are not....and yet most GW supporters have an often strange human quality in common with those who are religious. Just an there is no definitive proof that any God exists those who believe in God have a blind faith that the God exists. So it is with the GW crowd in believing that there is bad warming happening AND that man is in a significant way responsible.
I actually laughed outloud when I read "I'm not sure what your definition of "proven" is, but.." Sounds a lot like a Clinton defense!
Please don't tell me you're unaware of the University and scientific research community's kowtowing to the politically correct theories of the day in order to get grant money? And maybe you're not able to read a scientific study and recognize when the those doing the study have a predefined idea of what the data should show? I can....it really stands out when you're not already in the "blind faith" camp.
I also believe that the enormous growth in the belief that people and primarily the use of oil cause GW is related to the hatred of Bush jr. The left will wrap their arms around anything, blindly, that demonizes Bush.
I'm sure you believe some sort of opposite fault in the logic of people like me. Other than with religion I was taught to not take things on blind faith. I suspect though you cannot step back and recognize the bias in the sources you choose to listen to, versus those who are willing to let the data take the conclusion wherever it may go.
Mov, GW is my abbreviation for Global Warming not Bush....but forget that for now. You're niave and/or maybe not able (like I said previously) to decide on your own if a given study or a piece of research holds up I guess?
You say "whatever your findings are need to stand up to the scrutiny of the worldwide scientific community"....NO, yes the opinions of others you KNOW to be smart and not biased when it comes to the outcome is a factor to consider but it should also stand up to your own scrutiny. I also find it funny (or maybe disturbing) that you think it's important that the "worldwide scientific community" chimes in.....why does it matter where the scientist hails from? Two smucks in east bum-fuck could solve any given scientific problem or theory definitively and it wouldn't matter what communists in China thought, or liberal socialists in France thought, etc.
Mov, I could show you sources for both sides of the GW issue for hours and point out the obvious universal bias in those claiming man is effecting things in a material way and that the warming we are seeing is not part of a normal cycle that the earth has gone thru for millions of years....but it's not worth my time...you probably think Al Gore's movie is a bullet proof case for this and that it's claims and sources stand up to scrutiny.
Mov! Who the hell, or better yet, what the hell is a "Mov"? Well, whatever it is or who ever you are, why don't you enlighten all of Tiny's guests and contributors to what you, a Mov, is doing to reduce GW (not George W)? Buying a Prias or carpooling isn't going to stop the cyclical process this planet has gone through for millions of years. So quit your stupid belly aching and stop acting like Tiny's kids are some how going to end up in a living hell because Tiny bought his wife a freaking SUV. That is unless you live off the land, in a grass or mud hut, own no material items that could possible contribute to GW (not George W)and walk wherever you go. DA
I think Mov, and people who buy into GW (not George W), are suffering from the same mental affliction that allowed them to use the fake but true position on the CBS faked documents attempting to make GWB (George W. Bush) look bad.
They want GW (not George W) to be a reality because they view big oil as a Republican/Conservative/Bush-type-of-president center piece. If GW (not George W), of late, is caused by man and use of oil is a main cause then big oil is bad.
The logic is really very juvenile...it's like saying Glock is responsible for the murder done by a person using a Glock....of course no Liberals who think GW (not George W.) is real and our fault drive low mileage vehicles, or have their own jets, big energy sucking houses, and so on...only evil conservatives like me do!
Glock26 and I were just laughing a few weeks ago about a visiting professor at Berkeley (or as we call it the People Republic of Berkeley) who is a typical far left academic. On her website bio she was proud to point out she was driving the same car for 20 yrs and still going.
She's so intelligent, so enlightened, and a college prof and yet she has no clue that her 20 yr old gas engine is polluting more than probably three modern 2006/7 trucks or SUVs combined. The fuel/air technology, computer controlled combustion and ignition, the catalytic converters of today are like a warp drive compared to a 20 yr old engine when it comes to the particulates coming out of the tail pipe...way to go Mrs. green friendly liberal…and Mov!
Post a Comment