quote:

---

Originally posted by: Woody83
Majority of temperature increase prior to 1940. CO2 increased after 1960.

Majority of scientists reject Kyoto treaty.

Global warmers fail to prove how man has caused a problem.

Natural temperate increases and decreases over long periods, not caused by man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Woody83
What's the point. You'll find arguments and statistics from both sides from many sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Woody83
Well of course, wouldn't want to lose all that funding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Woody83
It's the crooked world we live in. Both sides will pay big bucks for research to get the answer they want. Manipulation of statistics on all sides. The only people I have a problem with are those who are hell bent on swearing it is man made warming when there is just the same 'research' to say it's not.

For fun look for the articles comparing Gore's home to Bush's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kast

quote:

---

Originally posted by: LHS92
Serious non-baiting question (just want to make that disclaimer since it appears politics, religion, and global warming are the hot button issues )

What do we make of this?

---

What about it? As I've said many times here and elsewhere, too many people get caught up in the idea that global warming is predictable and that it should be televised every time an ice sheet cracks. This isn't news meant for the 24 hour cycle.

That's why we see so many contradictory stories in the news. One day, we hear dread news about so-and-so ice sheet disappearing, while the next we hear of a new study that proves that humans little effect on the climate. In my rational opinion, it doesn't matter at all. Here's what everyone agrees on (or, at least, everyone with a brain):


(1) The carbon cycle WILL trap more heat on Earth unless we reduce carbon emissions;

(2) No one knows exactly what will happen, how quickly, or the effective magnitude

Showing one article about a disappearing ice sheet (or about an ice sheet that's slowed down) is almost completely irrelevant to the issue. Even trendlines can be faulty, but those 2 points I just made are facts. There's no reason to panic, and there's no reason to be complacent. A slow, steady march toward reducing pollution and carbon emissions is a good step, regardless of the details.

---

Science 4 July 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5885, pp. 111 - 113
DOI: 10.1126/science.1158540

Reports
Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet

R. S. W. van de Wal, W. Boot, M. R. van den Broeke, C. J. P. P. Smeets, C. H. Reijmer, J. J. A. Donker, J. Oerlemans

Continuous Global Positioning System observations reveal rapid and large ice velocity fluctuations in the western ablation zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Within days, ice velocity reacts to increased meltwater production and increases by a factor of 4. Such a response is much stronger and much faster than previously reported. Over a longer period of 17 years, annual ice velocities have decreased slightly, which suggests that the englacial hydraulic system adjusts constantly to the variable meltwater input, which results in a more or less constant ice flux over the years. The positive-feedback mechanism between melt rate and ice velocity appears to be a seasonal process that may have only a limited effect on the response of the ice sheet to climate warming over the next decades.

Institute for Marine and Atmospheric research Utrecht, Utrecht University, Netherlands.

The net loss in volume and hence sea level contribution of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) has doubled in recent years from 90 to 220 cubic kilometers/year has been noted recently (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2007). The main cause of this increase is the acceleration of several large outlet glaciers. There has also been an alarming increase in the number of photographs of meltwater draining into a moulin somewhere on the GIS, often near Swiss Camp (35 km inland from the calving front). The story goes - warmer temperatures, more surface melting, more meltwater draining through moulins to glacier base, lubricating glacier bed, reducing friction, increasing velocity, and finally raising sea level. Examining this issue two years RealClimate suggested this was likely the correct story. A number of recent results suggest that we need to take another look at this story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Deech56

Glacier dynamics is a function of snowfall and temperature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Deech56
My California geography is a bit rusty - is Mt. Shasta (or its glaciers, I guess) in a unique location where this effect would be more pronounced? Too tired to Google.

---