Greenland - What Do We Know, What Is The Long Term Future And Is There Any Evidence Of A Melt Out?

[knocker]

It's a sad fact of life that none of us see eye to eye with everyone we meet, nor everyone we converse with via the internet. It's not a big deal, or at least doesn't need to be. There's an easy solution if someone irritates you, use the ignore button, that's what it's there for. It's not compulsory to listen to, read, or reply to every post on a forum, be selective.

 

I've been told the same thing Dawn but surely the whole point of a forum is to bump around ideas/ opinions. I don't think the climate area is anywhere near as bad as it's made out to be. And as long as people support their point of view with reasonable arguments I don't see any problems.Regarding the irritation I have obviously irritated some people and am now resorting to reporting or ignoring..

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's a sad fact of life that none of us see eye to eye with everyone we meet, nor everyone we converse with via the internet. It's not a big deal, or at least doesn't need to be. There's an easy solution if someone irritates you, use the ignore button, that's what it's there for. It's not compulsory to listen to, read, or reply to every post on a forum, be selective.

 

That's true.

But one of the main reasons I continue to post in the climate area, is to provide evidence, reasoning and a little science at times when others post anti-climate science propaganda (not directed at you, but explaining part of why I post in general). For that reason, I tend not to put people on ignore lists, especially not regular poster like yourself.

 

In this situation, Roy Spencer had taken things from the book out of context in order to make the Arctic changes in the early 20th century seem greater than they were, and applied an exaggerated importance to the book, despite its own author stating that much of it was his opinion and hadn't been verified. I thought this was disingenuous by Roy Spencer.

It wasn't anything against you. It wasn't anything against the book. It wasn't some biased alarmist against sceptic agenda driven post. I wasn't trying to catch anyone out.

 

If it had been a pro-AGW blog exaggerating and misrepresented something, I would have pointed it out just the same.

[jethro]

I've been told the same thing Dawn but surely the whole point of a forum is to bump around ideas/ opinions. I don't think the climate area is anywhere near as bad as it's made out to be. And as long as people support their point of view with reasonable arguments I don't see any problems.Regarding the irritation I have obviously irritated some people and am now resorting to reporting or ignoring..

 

It depends on what you aim to get out of it and what your personality is like. I can only speak for myself here, but my aim or rather inclination in these debates is curiosity. If I find something interesting, I'll read or listen, occasionally passing stuff on for others to read too. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince others to think the same as I do, folk are free to make their own mind up.  I also have absolutely no interest in other folk trying to convince me either, I'm not being funny but I'm a reasonably intelligent person, I can read and study as well as the next person, I can decide for myself, I neither need nor want to be guided. As for the endless debate about the validity of the AGW theory, evidence for or against - I have even less of an interest. It's a futile argument, no one in the world can prove it either way. Futility just doesn't float my boat. As for personality type, I'm a straight talking person, sometimes blunt, but it's in a way often associated with Yorkshire folk - I call a spade a spade. But it's not aggressive, merely honest. I haven't the patience nor time to continually cover the same ground, with the same people, life's too short. In the real world I wouldn't spend time with people who I don't see eye to eye with, or who have a completely different outlook on life than myself. The ignore button on here is just the electronic version of thinking 'whatever' as you walk in the opposite direction. 

[be cause]

Could anyone not discussing Greenland find somewhere else to play ?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Could anyone not discussing Greenland find somewhere else to play ?

 

Some Greenland stuff! A new model analysis of the current state of the Greenland ice that will be updated weekly and provides lots of data on the current state of the ice sheet.

http://climato.be/cms/index.php?climato=2013-melt-season-over-greenland-simulated-by-mar

 

[UV-RAY]

It depends on what you aim to get out of it and what your personality is like. I can only speak for myself here, but my aim or rather inclination in these debates is curiosity. If I find something interesting, I'll read or listen, occasionally passing stuff on for others to read too. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince others to think the same as I do, folk are free to make their own mind up. I also have absolutely no interest in other folk trying to convince me either, I'm not being funny but I'm a reasonably intelligent person, I can read and study as well as the next person, I can decide for myself, I neither need nor want to be guided. As for the endless debate about the validity of the AGW theory, evidence for or against - I have even less of an interest. It's a futile argument, no one in the world can prove it either way. Futility just doesn't float my boat. As for personality type, I'm a straight talking person, sometimes blunt, but it's in a way often associated with Yorkshire folk - I call a spade a spade. But it's not aggressive, merely honest. I haven't the patience nor time to continually cover the same ground, with the same people, life's too short. In the real world I wouldn't spend time with people who I don't see eye to eye with, or who have a completely different outlook on life than myself. The ignore button on here is just the electronic version of thinking 'whatever' as you walk in the opposite direction.

Excellent post Jethro, you highlight all the points why Ive given up posting here and believe me there are many more who feel the same. The climate area may as well be closed down, this due to how as soon as one posts anything questioning a theory you find yourself under attack. The link you posted was a fascinating read regardless of the petty arguments regarding AGW, perhaps it would be better to posts interesting literature outside of the climate forum. Edited June 26, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[be cause]

Excellent post Jethro, you highlight all the points why Ive given up posting here and believe me there are many more who feel the same. The climate area may as well be closed down, this due to how as soon as one posts anything questioning a theory you find yourself under attack. The link you posted was a fascinating read regardless of the petty arguments regarding AGW, perhaps it would be better to posts interesting literature outside of the climate forum.

All about Greenland ?

[Iceberg]

Excellent post Jethro, you highlight all the points why Ive given up posting here and believe me there are many more who feel the same. The climate area may as well be closed down, this due to how as soon as one posts anything questioning a theory you find yourself under attack. The link you posted was a fascinating read regardless of the petty arguments regarding AGW, perhaps it would be better to posts interesting literature outside of the climate forum.

Funny as i stopped posting here for exactly the opposite of this...

[jethro]

Could anyone not discussing Greenland find somewhere else to play ?

 

Do you have any thoughts on the information I posted about Arctic/Greenland concerns in the 1930's?

[BornFromTheVoid]

be cause, just make sure you take the historic information about the Arctic from the book itself which you can look through here, pages 445 onwards in particular are quite relevant.

The snippets Roy Spencer took from it (to which Jethro linked) were quite biased and often completely out of context, so beware.

Edited June 26, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[jethro]

be cause, just make sure you take the historic information about the Arctic from the book itself which you can look through here, pages 445 onwards in particular are quite relevant.

The snippets Roy Spencer took from it (to which Jethro linked) were quite biased and often completely out of context, so beware.

 

Can't he just be left to read and make his own mind up? There's clearly a link to the book in the Spencer article.

[be cause]

Can't he just be left to read and make his own mind up? There's clearly a link to the book in the Spencer article.

 

 

 LOL .. I'm busy on my nursery ..  the buzz of the bees keeps my head nice and empt

[BornFromTheVoid]

Can't he just be left to read and make his own mind up? There's clearly a link to the book in the Spencer article.

 

Why read out of context snippets when you can simply have the whole, unbiased, original source?

[jethro]

Why read out of context snippets when you can simply have the whole, unbiased, original source?

 

I found the link easy enough from the Spencer article, you found the link easy enough too, I'm pretty sure neither of us are genius's so it stands to reason, everyone else can see the link. 

 LOL .. I'm busy on my nursery ..  the buzz of the bees keeps my head nice and empt

I find weeding does it for me, bees buzzing and weeding and I'd probably be found hours later sound asleep in the border.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I found the link easy enough from the Spencer article, you found the link easy enough too, I'm pretty sure neither of us are genius's so it stands to reason, everyone else can see the link. 

 

Then why not just post the link direct to the book? Why insist on reading hand picked snippets without context first and irrelevant commentary first? 

[jethro]

Then why not just post the link direct to the book? Why insist on reading hand picked snippets without context first and irrelevant commentary first? 

You tell me where either you or I would have found that book without it being on Spencer's site - I'd never even heard of it, had you?

 

When it comes to extracting links from published articles, more often than not, if a book is out of print or old, an agreement has been reached between the one publishing and highlighting the work and the original writer or publisher. I personally do not have permission to use the original work, neither does Netweather. The fines and risks associated with breach of copywrite are large. Having trained and worked in publishing for more years than I care to remember, it's second nature to me to be aware of this at all times. I also know, if I post a link to a site which in it's self is breaching the copywrite laws, that risk is theirs, not mine - I and Netweather are protected by third party rules.

Edited June 26, 2013 by jethro

[BornFromTheVoid]

You tell me where either you or I would have found that book without it being on Spencer's site - I'd never even heard of it, had you?

 

When it comes to extracting links from published articles, more often than not, if a book is out of print or old, an agreement has been reached between the one publishing and highlighting the work and the original writer or publisher. I personally do not have permission to use the original work, neither does Netweather. The fines and risks associated with breach of copywrite are large. Having trained and worked in publishing for more years than I care to remember, it's second nature to me to be aware of this at all times. I also know, if I post a link to a site which in it's self is breaching the copywrite laws, that risk is theirs, not mine - I and Netweather are protected by third party rules.

 

So you're doing it as a favour to Spencer, to give him more visitor traffic?

 

The rest of your post is all well and good, but what's it got to do with anything here? Nobody is reproducing the book here, are they? I'll take the flack for any copyright problems by posting a link the the hosting site, the Biodiversity Heritage Library archives.

Edited June 26, 2013 by jethro

[UV-RAY]

So you're doing it as a favour to Spencer, to give him more visitor traffic?

 

The rest of your post is all well and good, but what's it got to do with anything here? Nobody is reproducing the book here, are they? I'll take the flack for any copyright problems by posting a link the the hosting site, the Biodiversity Heritage Library archives.

 

That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, Jethro is merely posting an interesting link for all too read, she certainly isn't doing it for Roy Spencers gain.

Edited June 26, 2013 by jethro

[BornFromTheVoid]

That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, Jethro is merely posting an interesting link for all too read, she certainly isn't doing it for Roy Spencers gain.

 

Try re-read and keep up with the actual conversation SI. 

[UV-RAY]

Try re-read and keep up with the actual conversation SI. 

I've read enough your acidic posts in the past thank you.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Seriously? My acidic posts?

[jethro]

So you're doing it as a favour to Spencer, to give him more visitor traffic?

 

The rest of your post is all well and good, but what's it got to do with anything here? Nobody is reproducing the book here, are they? I'll take the flack for any copyright problems by posting a link the the hosting site, the Biodiversity Heritage Library archives.

http://archive.org/details/arcticice00zubo

 

What?

 

That doesn't make any sense. At the end of the day, if you want to read all manner of nonsense into someone else's actions, you're at liberty to do so. You asked, I answered. 

 

As for linking to it directly and you taking the flack.....The copywrite laws are clear on this issue, if an internet site has it brought to their attention that a written article may be in breach of copywrite, then they are legally bound to remove the information or be liable to prosecution. In the eyes of the law, you saying you will take the flack, holds no water at all. The legal duty and prosecution would lay with Netweather as I have already said, there may be copywrite issues. As such, I am duty bound to remove your link.

[jethro]

Anyway. Moving on.....

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on the information about the loss of ice and rising temperatures during in the 1930's? There's a remarkable similarity between then and now. Any thoughts on what may have caused it then? Can we be certain that the same players are not working in a similar manner today? Do we even know what caused the melting then? Coming on the back of that warming/melting period in the 1930's, the ice made a remarkable recovery in the following decades. Does this bode well for the future? Are we likely to see a recovery, on a similar level today, or are we likely to witness even more melting?

[BornFromTheVoid]

What?

 

That doesn't make any sense. At the end of the day, if you want to read all manner of nonsense into someone else's actions, you're at liberty to do so. You asked, I answered. 

 

As for linking to it directly and you taking the flack.....The copywrite laws are clear on this issue, if an internet site has it brought to their attention that a written article may be in breach of copywrite, then they are legally bound to remove the information or be liable to prosecution. In the eyes of the law, you saying you will take the flack, holds no water at all. The legal duty and prosecution would lay with Netweather as I have already said, there may be copywrite issues. As such, I am duty bound to remove your link.

 

I asked why do you insist on people reading out of context snippets and irrelevant commentary, rather than just the book. You replied with the question of whether we would have found the book without Spencers blog. Which indicated to me, that you were doing it as a courtesy/favour because it's where you found it. That's all. As for reading all manner of nonsense, how typical and incredibly hypocritical of you to resort to insults yet again in lieu of an actual answer.

 

Are you going to remove every link to every peer reviewed papers on this forum too? Or is it just anything I post? Perhaps you should bring it to the attention of the open library that their breaking copyright laws. Or could it be that all the versions of the book online are not breaking copyright laws and you're wrong?

[jethro]

I asked why do you insist on people reading out of context snippets and irrelevant commentary, rather than just the book. You replied with the question of whether we would have found the book without Spencers blog. Which indicated to me, that you were doing it as a courtesy/favour because it's where you found it. That's all. As for reading all manner of nonsense, how typical and incredibly hypocritical of you to resort to insults yet again in lieu of an actual answer.

 

Are you going to remove every link to every peer reviewed papers on this forum too? Or is it just anything I post? Perhaps you should bring it to the attention of the open library that their breaking copyright laws. Or could it be that all the versions of the book online are not breaking copyright laws and you're wrong?

 

I give up Sam. I'm bored with this nonsense, as I'm pretty sure everyone else is too. As such, I'm taking my electronic option to think 'whatever' and pressing the button.

 

So.....does anyone have any thoughts on the actual content of the book, the state of the ice back then?