Greenland Ice Loss 'accelerating'

[Admiral_Bobski]

As Laser says it's about added 'focus' on the future that you may not be around for (but they will).

If I were a better man I'd not need kids to provide that fuction for me but I'm not so they do .

So you are basically saying that those who accept AGW are more likely to have kids, and those who are skeptical of AGW are more likely to not have kids.

The rationale would be that you are more likely to protect the planet if you have kids because you care about your children and their future.

By extension, therefore, you are saying that those who are skeptical of AGW and do have kids are bad parents, since they don't care enough about their children to protect the planet.

Well thanks a bunch.

CB

[Methuselah]

Please Mr G-W...I wish you hadn't have asked that question...As they say: Ask a silly question, get a silly answer???

[Thundery wintry showers]

I actually interpreted G-W's post differently- I thought he was rather nobly and honestly saying that if he didn't have kids he might not have enough of a conscience to care about future generations, but since he does have kids they cause him to care.

Being sceptical about AGW and having kids doesn't mean one is someone who doesn't care about their future- there's also the more general "sustainability" angle to consider.

It is also feasible to not have kids and care (I've always hated the common belief that not having kids implies selfishness- it is possible to care about people other than your own children, and measuring selflessness by willingness to self-sacrifice is a horrible measure- it should go on the willingness to give to others). Personally I care a lot about sustainability for future generations- and consider that this is a major issue facing us regardless of how big an issue AGW really is.

AGW or no, Greenland ice loss acceleration, if it continues, could result in major sea level rises (as it is a land-based ice sheet) and this is also a major cause for concern. If we are significantly contributing to the warming, we can do something to reduce the extent of this problem by moving towards more sustainable ways of energy use and generation which will also address the sustainability problem. And if we aren't, we won't be able to stop the ice melt but we will still be able to address the sustainability problem in the same way.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Higrade had said that he had far more pressing issues to worry about than "moping about ice loss." GW managed, somehow, to infer from this that Higrade didn't have children (though I'm not sure where this came from - perhaps Higrade's more pressing issues are his kids).

I was responding to that inference rather than to his later "noble" comment. That original inference suggests that GW has a preconceived notion that those who are not concerned about ice loss (or about the environment more generally) due to other, more pressing, issues must be without children.

Under other circumstances I might have let the comment slide, but GW has made this insinuation at least a couple of times before. It seems, to me, to be indicative of GW's preconceptions and prejudices, and the comment had no place in this discussion.

CB

[J10]

Since the article merely states facts, and makes a genuine effort to avoid being biased (it even avoids downplaying the uncertainties regarding AGW), how is it scaremongering? Any inferences of "AGW is really taking off and we're all going to die" come from personal twisting of the article (possibly deliberately, so as to be able to dismiss it as scaremongering). The article says nothing of the sort, it just says that the rate of melting in Greenland has accelerated over the last few years.

I can guarantee that most of those who accuse that article of scaremongering would, if presented with an article that ranted about the "AGW conspiracy", would be accepting it as the ultimate truth.

The statement that we can't do anything about global warming assumes that humans aren't contributing to it. Again, since one common complaint against supporters of AGW is that they assume that we are contributing to it, it's a hypocritical stance. Of course the "that's life" approach is also used to make people feel better and non-inclined to bother doing anything to disrupt the status quo, but that approach is quite dangerous as history has shown time and time again.

It is also exceedingly unlikely that AGW is a cover-up for the "peak oil" and related issues. I have often stated that I think people would be more likely to listen, and take action, if the issue of general sustainability was emphasised in the campaigns, rather than possible human-induced climate change. So why don't they emphasise sustainability? Before anyone says, "because they want to make money", why emphasise an aspect of the problem that is less likely to breed action and therefore make them money? It is highly likely to be that AGW is perceived to be the greater threat, whether rightly or wrongly.

It does appear that the article does try to be fairly balanced and as such is something to be worried about. The subject matter is important enough for facts to be disclosed as accurately as possible without spin. If more articles came out like this then it is likely to be beneficial for greater understanding of the topic.

However it does appear to be more of a confirmation of what we already knew rather than new information.

It does not reflect well on the respondants concerned if an article cannot merely point out the raw truth without being assumed to be scaremongering about AGW.

This shows the danger of crying wolf too often. Genuine articles are then assumed to be propaganda when they are not.

[Methuselah]

Okay CB, you've made your point...Perhaps, we should better draw line under it??

These things happen??

[Thundery wintry showers]

Higrade had said that he had far more pressing issues to worry about than "moping about ice loss." GW managed, somehow, to infer from this that Higrade didn't have children (though I'm not sure where this came from - perhaps Higrade's more pressing issues are his kids).

CB

Apologies - I didn't notice his earlier post, now I see exactly where you're coming from. I've come across statements like it from others (usually associated with environmental campaign groups) before, and it's one of the reasons why I've never liked the "tackling AGW is for your kids!" argument.

I agree with JACKONE's "crying wolf" comment, and I think the BBC itself has, in the past, been guilty of ramping up AGW- it only seems to be in the past year or so that the BBC's articles relating to AGW have tended to be balanced.

[Gray-Wolf]

Having children has made me more conscious of predictions into the later part of the century.

It has made me contemplate the situation far deeper than I imagine I would have otherwise.

If folk wish to project their understandings and interpretation onto things then that is their decision.

I'm thankful that some folk understand my attempts to be better understood and that some sage council can also be offered without personal judgement.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Having children has made me more conscious of predictions into the later part of the century.

It has made me contemplate the situation far deeper than I imagine I would have otherwise.

If folk wish to project their understandings and interpretation onto things then that is their decision.

I'm thankful that some folk understand my attempts to be better understood and that some sage council can also be offered without personal judgement.

Well, that's all fair enough, GW, but it was you who were projecting your own situation onto others. I fail to see how your comment to Higrade helped you in your attempts to be better understood.

But, as Pete suggested, I shall now draw a line under it.

The End.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I think I owe all the folk who have taken exception to my 'children' comment my appologise for any upset I have caused them.

It was clumbsy and uncalled for and C-Bob is right in his observations that it had no place in the general debate on climate change.

I am passionate about some areas of the debate and I hope you all will understand that this is partly fired by my love for my lads ( and everyone else's children by extension of that).

When talking of events that will not create issues until my boys are grown I have to include them in my thinkings on any such impacts.

None of us wish our children anything other than the best in life and I would never intentionally infer that this was not the case.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think I owe all the folk who have taken exception to my 'children' comment my appologise for any upset I have caused them.

It was clumbsy and uncalled for and C-Bob is right in his observations that it had no place in the general debate on climate change.

I am passionate about some areas of the debate and I hope you all will understand that this is partly fired by my love for my lads ( and everyone else's children by extension of that).

When talking of events that will not create issues until my boys are grown I have to include them in my thinkings on any such impacts.

None of us wish our children anything other than the best in life and I would never intentionally infer that this was not the case.

Thank you for that Gray Wolf. I, for one, accept your apology and I think I see now where you are coming from. I apologise also, for jumping on your comment with bared fangs! I guess I'm just feeling a bit grumpy lately. Hopefully we can all move on from this and have some more constructive discussions.

CB

[Pingo]

It's just a hoax. Global temperatures have been in decline since either 1998 or 1992 depending on how you correct for Mt Pinatubo, so there's no way you can have warmth-driven ice loss. Either there is no ice-loss, or there is ice-loss and it is unconnected with any global warming. Either way, it's something we can do nothing about.

Antarctic sea ice extent hit record maximum last year, which should bring some balance to this alarmist story.

Arctic ice has also been expanding in rapid fashion the last two winters.

Just the facts.

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's just a hoax. Global temperatures have been in decline since either 1998 or 1992 depending on how you correct for Mt Pinatubo, so there's no way you can have warmth-driven ice loss. Either there is no ice-loss, or there is ice-loss and it is unconnected with any global warming. Either way, it's something we can do nothing about.

Antarctic sea ice extent hit record maximum last year, which should bring some balance to this alarmist story.

Arctic ice has also been expanding in rapid fashion the last two winters.

Just the facts.

Well, as long as we're talking "facts" perhaps we should avoid making corrections and instead look at the raw data. If you make a correction for Mt Pinatubo then perhaps you should make a correction for 1998's massive El Nino, too. Normalising the El Nino-induced peak in 1998 we haven't really seen much of a decline in temperatures, have we?

I should point out that I am a skeptic (and quite a vociferous one at that!), but I believe in following the facts. The fact is that temperatures have levelled off over the last decade or so, but there is no decline at present - certainly there is no statistically significant decline, and being a statistician you should be able to appreciate this.

Arctic ice loss is caused by more than simply warm air temperatures - SSTs play a role that is perhaps even more important than air temps, as do ocean currents, atmospheric currents and so on. It seems that your view on AGW may be a little over-simplified. There's a heck of a lot of informative discussion on this forum, and it is worth checking out the pinned threads which link to numerous studies, articles and papers on the subject.

CB

[Pingo]

Well, as long as we're talking "facts" perhaps we should avoid making corrections and instead look at the raw data. If you make a correction for Mt Pinatubo then perhaps you should make a correction for 1998's massive El Nino, too. Normalising the El Nino-induced peak in 1998 we haven't really seen much of a decline in temperatures, have we?

I should point out that I am a skeptic (and quite a vociferous one at that!), but I believe in following the facts. The fact is that temperatures have levelled off over the last decade or so, but there is no decline at present - certainly there is no statistically significant decline, and being a statistician you should be able to appreciate this.

Arctic ice loss is caused by more than simply warm air temperatures - SSTs play a role that is perhaps even more important than air temps, as do ocean currents, atmospheric currents and so on. It seems that your view on AGW may be a little over-simplified. There's a heck of a lot of informative discussion on this forum, and it is worth checking out the pinned threads which link to numerous studies, articles and papers on the subject.

CB

Yes there is not yet a significant decline. But the incline is certainly not there. This falsifies the alarmist climate models.

I completely agree that SSTs are more important than air temperatures. You should seek out the thoughts of Stephen Wilde who can discuss the thermodynamics of oceanic-atmospheric interaction better than I can, and who has ascertained that the oceans and certainly not the air have determined the ice extent of the Arctic in recent years.

[winterfreak]

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/himalayan-glaciers-not-shrinking-rapidly-.html

Saw this earlier which makes for thoughtful musing......

[Pingo]

http://www.scidev.ne...g-rapidly-.html

Saw this earlier which makes for thoughtful musing......

The Himalayan Glaciers are an interesting one.

Basically if they start to melt, it's dangerous because there will be no water for the Indians to bathe in.

So they mustn't melt. And then the Indians will be able to bathe forevermore, of course.

[winterfreak]

The Himalayan Glaciers are an interesting one.

Basically if they start to melt, it's dangerous because there will be no water for the Indians to bathe in.

So they mustn't melt. And then the Indians will be able to bathe forevermore, of course.

Ha Ha!! I know the Himalayan link is slightly OT for Greenland but you know, it does make you wonder what's going on re warming/cooling etc.... A few more years and we should know for sure.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yes there is not yet a significant decline. But the incline is certainly not there. This falsifies the alarmist climate models.

I completely agree that SSTs are more important than air temperatures. You should seek out the thoughts of Stephen Wilde who can discuss the thermodynamics of oceanic-atmospheric interaction better than I can, and who has ascertained that the oceans and certainly not the air have determined the ice extent of the Arctic in recent years.

So now you agree that there isn't a decline? And if SSTs are increasing then what is causing them to increase?

CB

[Pingo]

So now you agree that there isn't a decline? And if SSTs are increasing then what is causing them to increase?

CB

No, we don't have a quick decrease in global temperatures yet.

It could mean that GHG effects are large and solar minimum effects are also large.

It could mean they are both small.

It could mean climate is on a random walk.

Do we really know? No. So let's not trash our economies.

[Admiral_Bobski]

No, we don't have a quick decrease in global temperatures yet.

It could mean that GHG effects are large and solar minimum effects are also large.

It could mean they are both small.

It could mean climate is on a random walk.

Do we really know? No. So let's not trash our economies.

You didn't answer my question about what is causing SSTs to rise.

Do you have any thoughts or insights into your comments above? Do you believe GHGs have a large effect, or that solar effects are large or small?

I agree that we shouldn't risk the economy on a hypothesis, but I'm not sure where your last comment came from. Did I mention anything about the economy?

CB

[winterfreak]

No, we don't have a quick decrease in global temperatures yet.

It could mean that GHG effects are large and solar minimum effects are also large.

It could mean they are both small.

It could mean climate is on a random walk.

Do we really know? No. So let's not trash our economies.

Pingo, i'm new to this forum too but to join and then get into rows with people you don't actually 'know' is a bit off mate. Nowt wrong with passionate discussion but wouldn't it be better to get to 'know' people first instead alienating them to you? no point starting off as a ranter because as far as i can see, people won't bother with you if you do

[Admiral_Bobski]

Pingo, i'm new to this forum too but to join and then get into rows with people you don't actually 'know' is a bit off mate. Nowt wrong with passionate discussion but wouldn't it be better to get to 'know' people first instead alienating them to you? no point starting off as a ranter because as far as i can see, people won't bother with you if you do

Well said, winterfreak - we all appreciate well-mannered people, like your good self.

Welcome to the boards

CB

[winterfreak]

Well said, winterfreak - we all appreciate well-mannered people, like your good self.

Welcome to the boards

CB

Thanks CB, much appreciated.

Look forward to getting to know you as well as the others!

[Pingo]

Pingo, i'm new to this forum too but to join and then get into rows with people you don't actually 'know' is a bit off mate. Nowt wrong with passionate discussion but wouldn't it be better to get to 'know' people first instead alienating them to you? no point starting off as a ranter because as far as i can see, people won't bother with you if you do

Right, we're taking this outside

I'm very serious about this scientific incident because we need to realise there are a large amount of hoaxers and fraudsters trying to fleece us. Science requires people to assess the quality of the research and I am distraught that the likes of M*&^ and J^%$£ and Cho)(*&^%$ have trashed the scientific process. I am completely in favour of science. I am not in favour of the trashing of science and hiding data and methods.

[winterfreak]

Right, we're taking this outside

I'm very serious about this scientific incident because we need to realise there are a large amount of hoaxers and fraudsters trying to fleece us. Science requires people to assess the quality of the research and I am distraught that the likes of M*&^ and J^%$£ and Cho)(*&^%$ have trashed the scientific process. I am completely in favour of science. I am not in favour of the trashing of science and hiding data and methods.

!!

I understand your frustration, i feel the same, but some decorum please.......