Greenland's ice is growing darker

That would be nice 'n easy.
No work, just magic.
Poof! Prayers answewed.

You got that right... MEN's messes. ;-)

I was hoping you would not miss the CAPS. Here's something working in the wings you might like => http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/01/15/1253233/pouring-water-into-a-volcano... There appears to be a WOMAN scientist involved so of course it will be summarily dispatched down a man's rathole.

Pope Benedict's Successor will be given free rides into Outer Space. WILL YOU?

HAHAHA Does the word trash ring any church bells in your steeple?

Dang it, IceKat. You've got me on this one. I don't have the time right now to try and pick this apart. I'll have to wait for the cavalry on this one. :)
I'll bump you up, though, just for keeping it civil.

Are you serious?

Well yes. Relevant information presented in a civil manner? I'm quite serious. :)

Then explain it to us. Because it is not cited or linked and cherrypicks once again regarding readings. The "Summit" is not the whole and there is no corroboration of any numbers listed. It also does nothing to refute what NASA has shown regarding the entirety of Greenland in 2011 in regards to a decrease in reflectivity as global temperatures rise which is what is exacerbating positive feedback (more melting.) This isn't about 4000 years ago, this is about current events and their effect on our future. Dispute the reflectiveness data then instead of telling us some unsourced blurb of a paragraph is even close to being credible regarding the findings reported by this article.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049444.shtml

High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core

Key Points
-Greenland surface temperature reconstructed over the past 4000 years
-Current Greenland temperature not exceeded natural variability of the period
-Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability by 2100
…
conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100.

From the link:

"Greenland recently incurred record high temperatures and ice loss by melting, adding to concerns that anthropogenic warming is impacting the Greenland ice sheet and in turn accelerating global sea-level rise. Yet, it remains imprecisely known for Greenland how much warming is caused by increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases versus natural variability. To address this need, we reconstruct Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4000 years at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet; hereafter referred to as Greenland temperature) with a new method that utilises argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles. The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was −30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited a long-term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.

Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100."
~~~~

Well gee, always helpful to post the ENTIRE paragraph. Thanks.

I have a hard time disagreeing with 99% of the scientific community.
Sure they could be wrong, like Newton was, Einstein was wrong.

But if you look at the evidence, its overwhelming convincing, even as climatologists continue their research to this very day.

Giving the 1% an equal footing to the 99% is not doing justice to the debate.

The 1% should be heard, but they should not control the debate as they have done so successfully so far.

I agree. But hey, let's also give air time as well to those who don't believe in gravity... that's about what this amounts to.

Well no, it's not about gravity. Or belief in gravity. Not anymore. Except, perhaps, in this sandbox.

My position is probably best understood by understanding the Klein article, "Capitalism vs. the Climate", in The Nation on 11/28/11. I am absolutely certain you can find that.

Sure I can, as I can find anything if I so choose to. Doesn't change my words regarding this however.

Yes, I'm heartbroken. If looking at their cherrypicking lies wasn't so outrageous considering how criminal they are, they would be funny.

Especially for our grandchildren. However, paid Co2 lovers don't care about your grandchildren.

...and paid extremist alarmists love to scare your grandchildren with anti-scientific propaganda.

Defending the fossil fuel companies again? Oh, you thought I meant YOU? Guilty conscience? Anyway, thinking and telling people that CO2 is a good thing in any concentration and not understanding there is only a certain envelope in which humans and other species can live comfortably shows a great IGNORANCE of science. And oh, fast response there. Do you actually sit and WAIT FOR ME? Well, make sure to come here everyday to look for my posts so you can do as you were told to. And the fact that you would rather sit here BSING back and forth with me as if this isn't a real global crisis shows a HUGE disconnect to more than just science. Believe me, your MO is very much noted here by more than just me.

OH, but the instructions went out... make sure no one talks about climate change... and if they do and seem to be effective... dog them.... especially if the word Gore is in their name. Pathetic. Again, if your destructive BS wasn't so criminal, I would laugh in your cyberface.

Well I don't know how many other people you refer to as "paid CO2 lovers"!

Are you annoyed that I managed to present a peer-reviewed paper that shows Greenland is not in a death-spiral of continual melt, and even if there has been some melting recently, it is neither dangerous nor unprecedented, and it certainly isn't being driven by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Looks like another meltdown on the way, eh Jan? You should learn to relax a little and stop taking your role of self-appointed guardian of the planet too seriously - no-one's listening!
Have a nice day now :)

"Anyway, thinking and telling people that CO2 is a good thing in any concentration and not understanding there is only a certain envelope in which humans and other species can live comfortably shows a great IGNORANCE of science."

Sure, and 390ppm is dangerous?

Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?

Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?

Why did many of Earth's major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man's CO2 emissions?

This is about decreased "reflectivity" based on global temperature rise which is enhancing positive feedback. No one but you stated death spiral. One unsourced blurb you could have changed before posting and which explains nothing proves nothing.

The 'blurb' is sourced.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L21501, doi:10.1029/2011GL049444, 2011
The 'blurb', if you care to read the entire paper, indicates that Greenland has been warmer than it is at present, on many occasions in fact. Like it or not that is actually relevant for it shows that any warming he have experienced during the last century was not unprecedented, neither could it have been caused by man's emissions of CO2.

Your story, interesting though it is, shows the results of merely ten years of data.
From the article, "Most of the patterns on the map fit expectations." Most? And don't forget this is only a single analysis from once source, this needs to be discussed and researched within the scientific community.
Also, could there be other reasons for differing reflectivity, or is it obviously down to melting due to man's CO2 emissions?

Yes, it is to the point that it affects biodiversity, oceans, soil, agriculture, the hydrologic cycle etc. and brings us closer to 450ppm which is considered the threshold of the amount that starts the irreversible loop of effects or tipping point. Are you truly this ignorant about this? You must be because all you do is post blurbs from denier e-mails. Anyone who claims to know science knows the properties of CO2. The amount of CO2 ( and other HEAT TRAPPING greenhouse gases) humans are placing into the atmosphere daily which is putting a forcing on natural processes is now quickening the pace and severity of the effects we are seeing that would normally take hundreds of years to occur without that extra forcing because of increased heat and moisture. There has always been CO2 emitted in the form of agriculture and deforestation (so your blather here is an obvious red herring) but never at these rates in HUMAN history. Really, you need to actually read something that isn't propagandized by oil companies. If you truly believe that CO2 is completely harmless, you are truly uninformed.

Again, no linked verifiable source/author or explanation. Stop wasting my time.

The paper is titled:

High variability of Greenland surface temperature
over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air
in an ice core

The authors are:
Takuro Kobashi,Kenji Kawamura, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean‐Marc Barnola,
Toshiyuki Nakaegawa, Bo M. Vinther, Sigfús. Johnsen, and Jason E. Box

Do you have an unsourced unlinked talking point at the ready for every response? Is your shift over yet? Funny graph too. Is that an octopus on 1920? Now I will laugh. LOL.

That's nice. Link please and a place where I can corroborate this. You do have that don't you?

Hold on, I thought you were right on top of all this climate stuff? So why on earth have you not got access to Geophysical Research Letters, which is where the paper resides?
You do know how to access it, don't you, or does everything have to be a link to a newspaper article or a blog before it is valid in your eyes?

Post the link or you're a fake. Edit: Nevermind. I know now why you didn't. Gee, this was Current's Denier Crock Of The Week. Bye.

The paper is legitimate, peer-reviewed and exists in GRL.
Call me a fake all you want, it just shows your lack of credibility. Maybe you'll get access to it when Romm blogs about it, after all, that's where your 'knowledge' and 'understanding' seems to come from.

Now, you're wasting my time.

I have the information I need on it now ( see edit above) and as usual you cherrypicked. Good bye. Hopefully after reading your deceptions here more will know your true agenda.

Pity you hadn't the intelligence to find it yourself.
The final paragraph in the paper states:

5.4. Future Context
[17] Although somewhat speculative, it is of interest to
ask when Greenland snow temperature will exceed the
envelope of variability found in the last 4000 yr given
current projections. We define an upper bound of the natural
variability over the last 4000 years as the value (−28.7°C)
derived from two standard deviations (2.0°C) above the
average (−30.7°C) of Greenland temperatures over the period
(Figure 1). The future projections based on the IPCC emission
scenarios (SRES; B1, A1B, and A2) by IPCC AR4 models
(MPI, HADCM3, and HADGEM1; chosen for better performances
of Greenland climate reconstructions [Franco et al.,
2011]) indicate that annual average warming at Greenland
Summit will exceed 2–4°C above the 1970–1999 period by
2070–2099 [Franco et al., 2011]. The average reconstructed
Summit temperature of the 1970–1999 period is −31.4°C so
that the values of 2–4°C above the 1970–1999 period at
Greenland Summit are −29.4°C to −27.4°C, indicating a
possibility of exceeding the upper bound (−28.7°C) of the
natural variability by 2100.
_________________________________________________

If you read the paper you will see this for yourself.
Note: no mention of greenhouse gases.

Also, please could you explain to me how Greenland is supposed to melt at average temperatures of around -28C?
While the paper may predict warming, this is by no means certain to happen. Temperatures have flat-lined over the past decade so there is no certainty that warming will resume, in fact there's as much likelihood that temperatures may fall.

Talking of cherry-picking, why do you choose to ignore this, "The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010)."
What caused that warming Jan? Man's CO2 emissions?

I could find it, but you need to back up your bs here and you still didn't post the link. No mind though, it was posted and AGAIN, you didn't post all the information. Now please, you are truly boring and your attempt to discredit me because you are supposed to do that is getting very redundant.

"While the paper may predict warming, this is by no means certain to happen."

LOL, now you have to retune the message because the paper you cherrypicked actually disagrees with you. And if you don't understand reflectivity and positive feedback loops and their effects on temperature, your problem. Maybe Marc Morano or one of the other denialist goons who send out talking points will write some lies about it you can use.

And you've conveniently ignored every single inconvenient question I've asked - again!
Since when were predictions (usually added into papers to appease some sections of society) set in stone?

Read the paper. The paper shows conclusively that Greenland warming is not unprecedented and was warmer multiple times in the past.
Those facts alone discredit your CO2 = Global Warming theory.
You are nothing more than a a discredited fraud with absolutely no credibility, no answers and a mere propagandist, a pretty poor one at that.

YAWN.

That whole exchange was good!
A classic example of the futility of getting through to a fanatical denier.
I wish I had your patience and persistance.

Agreed. It was an excellent exchange.
JanforGore totally trashed once more.
First she could not find the source which was clearly written in the comment.
Then she had no idea how to access the source until you came along and showed her.
In total desperation she ranted and raged, until finally admitting defeat.

Only when you provided the abstract did she pick on the only thing that mattered to her. Totally disregarding the entire article, she picked up on the final paragraph - which is not in the actual paper - which stated that warming may still occur in the future.

Laughably, you then posted charts which you stated were the latest information, totally ignoring the latest information and charts from the 2011 article which shows your information to be out of date and irrelevant.

Have you read the paper? I know you managed to dig out the abstract, but have you actually read the entire paper?
How do you respond to this (on page 5).
"Excluding the last millennium, there were
72 decades warmer than the present one, in which mean
temperatures were 1.0 to 1.5°C warmer, especially in the
earlier part of the past 4000 years [Dahl‐Jensen et al., 1998;
Wanner et al., 2008]."

The bottom line here is that Greenland has been significantly warmer than present many times before. These periods were long before man could have possibly had an influence due to CO2 emissions.
As the planet has been warming for a few hundred years, which obviously began naturally, there is reason to believe that warming could continue. Though as temperatures fell dramatically after 1998, there is also reason to believe the warm period of the last century is now at an end.

Time will tell.

No one is denying Medieval Warming or the Little Ice Age over the past millennia. Neither event was global and both were caused by natural occurences (a Super El Nino for the former and Super volcanoes/population reduction for the latter). They only affected part of the Northern Hemisphere and NOT the whole globe as we are increasingly experiencing for the past 30 years, just as climate scientists have been warning us about since the 1950s.
Got it?

Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age were global, evidence has been found in all continents.
Greenland has been warmer, "72 decades warmer than the present one". Got it?
It's really not difficult once you tear yourself away from the failed theory of CO2 induced Global Warming.
Maybe some people (Mann) can try to eradicate known past warm periods, but the record remains intact, the evidence is there for all to see, well, except those who deny the past.

They will never get it. It isn't lucrative enough for them. They also live in the past because it gives their selfishness validation in their own minds.

By understanding the past we can learn from it. The past is relevant, and that's a point that sticks in your throat because it proves the climate has changed, often abruptly, many times before man could possibly have had any effect.

Glaciers melting - for hundreds of years. That bit is conveniently left out.
Mt Kilimanjaro, no snow due to global warming - except it was proven to be due to deforestation not temperature.
Global temperatures rising - but a third of surveyed ground stations showed no warming at all over a long term.
Temperatures rising due to CO2 emissions - except there is no correlation with the exception of twenty years in the 20th century.
So many other scare stories debunked. When theories stop reflecting the reality it's time to reevaluate the theory, not make the data fit the theory.
Accusing people of being paid by oil companies or being selfish are really immature responses. It's all you've got left, though.

"...72 decades warmer than the present one, in which mean temperatures were 1.0 to 1.5°C warmer..."

Just relish in that fact, it shows Global Warming is neither new, dangerous, man-made, nor unprecedented.

You are willfully ignorant of this and will apparently remain so. No one here has stated climate has never changed before... just one more broken record denier red herring. HOW it is changing and the PACE and SEVERITY of it is currently unprecedented in human history. I know that is hard to wrap around your CO2 loving brain because it is something you deliberately elude because it doesn't fit in with your agenda. So be it. People like you are a waste of time because you are more than likely paid to say what you do. Your utter obsession with concentrating on defending oil companies with your claptrap garbage is way too obvious. And spare me your victim act as well. I know damn well what I've said here and I stick by it because it doesn't compare with your lies about me and your daily constant dogging here. You don't like what is said in comments to you, tough. Suck it up like a man and stop thinking parroting the same lines at me everyday changes anything. Now go have a cup of tea and stop boring us all with your CO2 obsession.

You're very convincing. You remind me of that kid genius in the movie with Pierce Brosnan where at the end he screams he's INVINCIBLE right before taking the hit.

So the next part of the script is where you take the hit.

Armageddon.

The pace and severity of current climate change is minuscule compared to past climate changes.
You are so pissed that it can be shown conclusively that climate changes have occurred in the past, that the changes have been more severe, faster and more importantly - not caused by man!

Your anger is displayed here for all to see.

"...72 decades warmer than the present one, in which mean temperatures were 1.0 to 1.5°C warmer..."

Come on Jan... tell your hoards of followers why those temperatures were warmer than today's temperatures?

Your numbers prove Jan's estimation for the planet's immediate Climate future are probably correct, if not much worse so.

All your numbers are from times that had incredibly FEWER PEOPLE. Now with MORE PEOPLE and all their waste flowing into the ocean, and plastic, and darker ice, I don't see where Jan needs to reply to you at all.

You're making her case for her. hahahaha But by all means continue since you are on a rant.

You're welcome.

... can hardly wait... :)

Comes quick to the call of his cock, err.. koch brother masters!

And I apologize for that. The addiction to oil that our two countries are suffering under is literally ripping the heart out of Canada.

I wish more people could understand this. Thank you.

It's always especially distressing to see a country I admire so for general basic sanity in most areas fail in this area.

Intense political and economic pressure from the U.S. is making our politicians defy the wishes of the majority of the Canadian people for, what I think, is the first time.

Australia exports coal like crazy. The entire country is pretty much open for mining. In spite of huge areas to generate renewable energy, the government has allowed the expansion of uranium mining for export to India. Not only are we helping to pollute the world, we are economically geared to expand the pace of mining. Kind of crazy for a country that is quite sensitive to climatic changes. If the coal screws the climate and uranium poisons or nukes anyone I'd like to also apologise now. I'm pretty sure we will help hasten our demise and bring beer and sausages along as well.

That is the heartbreaking reality of this silent tragedy.
The silence.

And the deception.