[Talkhard]

Hot off the wires . . . another major blow to the global warming hysteria crowd. Seems that magma from under the earth may be causing the ice sheets under Greenland to melt. Somebody better tell Al Gore, 'cause he thinks it's big business that's to blame. Heh, heh.

Clues to a new natural contribution to the melt arose when scientists discovered a thin spot in the Earth’s crust under the northeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet where heat from Earth’s insides could seep through, scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

“The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,” said lead scientist Ralph von Frese of Ohio State University. “However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts too.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...nggreenlandice

[stockfire]

Global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland. Scientists have found at least one natural magma hotspot under the Arctic island that could be pitching in.

Missed the first line, there. Are you more concerned with science and understading your world or proving Al Gore wrong? I find you to be incredibly trite and childish.

[crandc]

Must be a hell of a big magma sheet since the ice is melting over Antarctica as well. Not to mention the Alps which are not near oceans.

I say to Talkhard what I say to Yega: find a peer reviewed article that backs you up, learn something of the subject, then expect to be taken seriously. Not before.

[Krstic All Star]

No Mr. Powers, I expect them to die. Even after they pay me the money I'm still going to melt every city on the planet with liquid hot magma. Release the sharks. Mr. Powers you'll notice that all the sharks have laser beams attached to their heads. I figure every creature deserves a warm meal.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by stockfire

Missed the first line, there. Are you more concerned with science and understading your world or proving Al Gore wrong?

Science is what proves Al Gore wrong. This story and many others have demonstrated that. It's becoming more and more obvious that Global warming is junk science masquerading as "truth" in order to serve the cause of a certain political agenda. That "first line" you mentioned has to be thrown in there to serve the cause of the current political thinking--but it's extremely likely that global warming is a completely natural phenomenon.

I find you to be incredibly trite and childish.

Yeah, it's tough when somebody challenges your world view.

[dudleysghost]

Someone buy Talkhard a globe please. This is pathetic. Look how big the icy area of the Arctic is. Ice is receding all over the place. Countries are fighting to claim newly accessible shelf areas for oil exploration. The Northwest passage is almost open. Ice is measurably receding all over the Arctic, as well as the rest of the planet. Oh wait, someone found a hotspot in Greenland. That explains it all...

[Krstic All Star]

Of course the Antarctic ice sheet is growing...

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by Krstic All Star

Of course the Antarctic ice sheet is growing...

It's predicted to grow in many global warming models, although more recent evidence says it may be shrinking anyway. What do you think is the significance of that observation? Do you think that if ice grows on any place on Earth that it is evidence against the global warming hypothesis? If so, I can tell you why that's a flawed argument.

[Krstic All Star]

^ I make no suggestions either way, as I am largely unswayed by either side. But there are models that show redistribution of ice as indicative of something other than global warming.

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by Krstic All Star

^ I make no suggestions either way, as I am largely unswayed by either side. But there are models that show redistribution of ice as indicative of something other than global warming.

It's true, the climate is a complex system with a whole lot of variables and unknowns. I think that's why many choose to use the term "climate change" rather than simply "warming" now, because the former better captures that complexity. I don't know if you are a climatologist, but I'm sure that you are aware that a pretty overwhelming majority of them are swayed by global warming hypothesis. If you are qualified to make your own judgment on the matter, that's fine, but if not, why do you feel justified in disregarding scientific consensus.

If massive loss of ice rather than the endorsement of the scientific community is more convincing for you though (in either case, it illustrates the ridiculousness of TH's Greenland hot spot explanation), take a look at the ice projections for the Arctic.



It's not proof itself, but scientists hypothesized climate change from CO2 emissions quite some time ago, and the climate has roughly followed those predicitons. Warming oceans, melting Arctic and other continental ice, rising sea levels, and the scientific consensus has only continued to grow stronger. What exactly would sway you, if not that?

[Krstic All Star]

^ Climatology is certainly not my area of expertise, but a fair number of the models I've seen fail to go back far enough historically to account for a whole slew of seeming anomalies attributed to human activity. Additionally, the fact that the mis-categorized 'overwhelming' majority of scientists currently subscribe to this theory to the point of mantra makes me leery.

All I do know is that Kyoto sure as Hell wasn't the answer.

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by Krstic All Star

^ Climatology is certainly not my area of expertise, but a fair number of the models I've seen fail to go back far enough historically to account for a whole slew of seeming anomalies attributed to human activity. Additionally, the fact that the mis-categorized 'overwhelming' majority of scientists currently subscribe to this theory to the point of mantra makes me leery.

All I do know is that Kyoto sure as Hell wasn't the answer.

There have been numerous surveys of the literature, and a series of IPCC meetings on the issue. The majority of relevant scientists do subscribe to the theory. That is a fact. What makes you believe otherwise?

If you believe climate change isn't occuring or isn't caused by humans, then Kyoto wouldn't be the answer. If you believe scientific consensus, which it seems to me we should since we don't have expertise of our own to competently evaluate various models, then it is a major problem, and Kyoto was an attempt to organize the various countries on the planet to avoid a classic commons tragedy. If you have a better method of reducing global CO2 emissions, or even slowing output growth, I'm sure the world would love to hear about it.