Koch-funded study supports anthropogenic climate change

[Allegro]

---

Icebergs off Greenland | Bad Astronomy | July 30th, 2012

Greenland’s been in the news lately, what with cracking off an iceberg as big as Manhattan, and having a huge burst of melting due to unusual warm air ridges squatting over it.

The Greenland ice sheet is huge: 1.7 million square kilometers (650,000 square miles), and commonly creates a lot of icebergs in the summer. This season is no exception, and in mid-July, during the biggest melt ever seen, NASA’s Terra Earth-observing satellite took this quite beautiful shot of icebergs floating off Greenland in Baffin Bay:

[ click here to view large image. ~ A. ]

Note the scale; the image is about 45 km (27 miles) on a side. The image is a mix of natural colors and infrared; that makes the water look deep blue, the ground brown, and vegetation red (the Greenland coast has grass and other plants). The icebergs are easy enough to spot, some are several hundred meters across. The smaller ones pose the biggest navigational hazard, and images like this (as well as spotters on the sea and in the air) help seafarers avoid the worst of them.

And one thing I want to note. Last week I wrote about the Greenland ice melt in July, and as usual got some, um, interesting comments about it. I was very careful when talking about the Greenland melting and not tie it to global warming; I start the paragraph saying it’s difficult to pin any specific event with climate change, and end with saying the melting is consistent with what we expect. I even mention the fact that some of the melting is probably due to historic cycles, yet many people made comments as if they hadn’t read that particular statement. It’s amazing to me. It shows the state of the “debate” now; it doesn’t matter how careful I am and what pains I take to be accurate. The attacks blow through as if – oddly enough – facts don’t matter.

It would be so much easier if I could just make things up out of thin (but hot) air, find some small niggling point to amplify well beyond what’s called for, to bend facts like moldable plastic to fit whatever preconceived ideology I have.

But when it comes to things like this, I have no ideology. Seriously. I would love for global warming to not be true. I would love it if the facts indeed showed our climate is stable, or that the change is natural, or that the change won’t have any deleterious effects.

Alas, that’s not the case. Reality is, in the end, real. As is global warming, and the sooner we get past the political noise about it, the better.

Image credit: NASA/JPL

[Luther Blissett]

Something about Bad Astronomy puts me off from time to time; a sense of a deep fear that could at any moment compromise the integrity of the blog. A profound fear of the unknown and unknowable. An ignorance of the weird touched with a bit of cowardice.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Hehe you are so right Luther.

Materialists see not.

Skeptics are among the most profoundly stupid folk on the planet.

The "amazing" Randi!

Ha!

...

[Burnt Hill]

Strange and Dramatic Thaw in Greenland May Be Cyclical
http://www.good.is/post/strange-and-dramatic-thaw-in-greenland-may-be-cyclical/

These NASA maps show how, within the space of four days earlier this month, Greenland's vast ice sheet faced degree of melting not seen in three decades of satellite observations as temperatures there rose. The image at left shows the ice sheet on July 8, with a large part of it experiencing no melting in summer, as is typical. By July 12, the surface of virtually the entire ice sheet was melting, a phenomenon not seen in three decades of satellite imaging. (NASA)

If you care about climate change, and recent studies indicate that members of Generation X are less than passionately following the issue, you probably saw the news that Greenland is underwent a massive summer thaw earlier this month. The entire ice sheet—two miles thick at its center—that covers the world's largest island experienced melting in mid-July over the course of four days. The ice melted even at Greenland's highest and coldest summit.

The Associate Press called it a "freak event" and "unprecedented." Dozens of outlets quickly filed breathless stories under headlines like "Greenland Melts in Front of NASA's Eyes" and "Greenland is Melting Literally". True, the data and satellite images released by NASA showed a rate of change more dramatic than any findings since they began measuring with satellite records. A NASA chief scientist was widely quoted with this alarming, but rather vague assertion:


When we see melt in places that we haven't seen before, at least in a long period of time, it makes you sit up and ask what's happening? It's a big signal, the meaning of which we're going to sort out for years to come.

A bit further down the NASA report actually states, "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time. But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
That tidbit mostly got buried in the hubbub, but it's important. As The New York Times' Andrew Revkin points out, such unrefined climate change reporting only enables "those whose passion or job is largely aimed at spreading doubt about science pointing to consequential greenhouse-driven warming."

I am not familiar with Revkin, but he makes a good point here.

[Ben D]