Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Greenland Ice Sheet'

Tag Archives: Greenland Ice Sheet

Jo Chandler : “Melting moments put ice sheets in a new light” Hmm I think not

I can’t help wondering just why the Fairfax press keeps running the global warming pieces written by Jo Chandler.This effort “Melting moments put ice sheets in a new light” is actaully rather confused and totally lacking in internal logic. It sets out to discuss two different scientific papers about the changing sea levels in the past. This claim however

What the lower level of sea-level rise suggests, they say, is that both the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed during the protracted warm of the Pleistocene, when the dance of the Earth’s orbit increased the solar radiation that the planet received.

But the revised level indicates that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the behemoth slab of ice spread over 11 million square kilometres and an average two kilometres thick, did not melt significantly through that long period of warming.

Is rather at odds with this piece of panic merchant behaviour just a few lines later

On Monday, researchers from Spain and Germany revealed findings that Greenland’s ice sheet is much more sensitive to global warming than previously thought, and may already be approaching a critical threshold.

They calculated that if global average temperatures reach 1.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels – and they have already warmed 0.8 degrees – the Arctic ice would likely tip towards irreversible loss.

It should be rather obvious to anyone that if the Antarctic ice sheet endured in a period of far protracted warming due to orbital variations of the planet then it is not going totip towards irreversible loss.“due to increases in CO2.  Sadly for the readers of the  Fairfax press this piece by their “Senior writer” is not going to help them appreciate  the science quite simply because its author is clearly lacking in the knowledge or ability  to truly understand the subject. There are times when being a devotee to the millenarian climate change cult  is just not enough and this piece by Jo Chandler is a very good example of just why the Fairfax press needs to get someone more knowledgeable and less sycophantic  to the white coated priests of the apocalyptic   faith to write on the subject of the  climate and humanity’s (possible) influence upon it.
Cheers Comrades

Doug of Canberra

I found this comment in Andrew Bolts Blog and I liked it so much that I quote it here. It sums up the shortcomings of the man made global warming position rather well,read and consider:-
Posted by doug of Canberra on Fri 13 Oct 06 at 01:32pm
To the debate-over shouters (before you take away my right to free speech):
1) if there is no proven link between hurricanes/cyclones and GW, it does not mean that there isn’t one – it just means that you have no right to say that there definitely is.
2) If there is no proof that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, you have no right to scream that we’re all drowning.
3) If most of Antarctica is actually cooling, don’t say it’s all melting.
4) If the Greenland ice sheet is getting thicker in the middle, don’t say it’s going to disappear in a couple of years. For that matter, if the Vikings used to have farms on Greenland, don’t claim that melting along the coast is unprecedented.
5) Until the satellite data (now adjusted for orbital decay) supports the surface record, and for that matter, supports greenhouse theory (which says the troposphere should warm more than the surface), don’t shout that the science is settled.
6) if melting glaciers in Europe reveal roman ruins, don’t say that we should panic because glaciers are melting!
7) If droughts and floods and storms have occurred all thought recorded history, don’t blame every drought and flood and storm on Global Warming.
8) If the satellite data fails to show warming in the southern hemisphere, don’t even talk about “global” warming – especially since your theory says that sulphate aerosols reduce the impact of greenhouse gases, and these aerosols are more abundant in the northern hemisphere.
9) There is a huge cost to reducing global CO2 emissions, and this cost will be borne disproportionately by the poor – especially in the third world. Please stop with the “precautionary principle”!
Of course there has been a rise in global average temperature – thanks in large part to a big hot-spot in the northern hemisphere, but please, stop the hysterical wailing and gnashing of teeth and let reason prevail!

%d bloggers like this: