Greenland ice SIMPLY WOULD NOT MELT in baking +8°C era 120k years ago

[cancel2 2022]

Scientists analysing ancient ice samples say that the Greenland ice sheet withstood temperatures much higher than today's for many thousands of years during a period of global warming more than 120,000 years ago, losing just a quarter of its mass. It had been widely suggested - by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for instance - that any such warming would melt the entire sheet, leading to massive sea-level rises.
The new research was carried out by analysing a 2.5km long ice core drilled from the Greenland ice last year by a major scientific expedition involving top boffins from around the world. The core data showed that 115 to 130 thousand years ago, temperatures above the Greenland ice were much higher than they are today: 8±4°C, in fact.


Until now it had been generally assumed that any such temperature rise - or indeed a much lesser rise of more than 3°C - would mean that all the Greenland ice would inevitably melt, causing the oceans of Earth to rise by as much as 7 metres. Based on the current IPCC status report, the climate-hardliner hippies at Greenpeace have this to say (pdf):

There is a major risk that the warming expected during the next five decades would trigger meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet ...
Ice sheet models project that a local warming of larger than 3°C ... would lead to virtually a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet ...

​

But we now know that the Greenland ice was exposed to much greater heat for many thousands of years and lost only a quarter of its mass, so the models are evidently wrong and another IPCC doom warning has been consigned to the dustbin of history (previously the organisation has attracted widespread ridicule for suggesting that the glaciers of the Himalayas would all be gone by 2035 and that the Amazon rainforest might suddenly catch fire, burn up and vanish).
"The good news from this study is that the Greenland ice sheet is not as sensitive to temperature increases and to ice melting and running out to sea in warm climate periods like the Eemian, as we thought," explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen of Copenhagen uni, one of the lead boffins working on the ice core research.
Some of the participating scientists suggested that even though we are now pretty sure we're safe from the Greenland ice sheet, we may still be flooded out of our homes at some point by meltwater from the even bigger and chillier Antarctic ice. However recent research has shown that big ice shelves down there, which had been thought to be melting, are actually not: that nothing new is going on in the much-discussed Western Antarctic peninsula: and that in fact the mighty sheet froze into being at a time when the atmosphere held much more carbon than it now does. It will also be well known to regular readers that the sea ice around the Antarctic coasts is steadily increasing in area year after year - baffling climate scientists and further undermining confidence in their models.
The new Greenland ice-core research is published here in hefty boffinry mag Nature. ®


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/24/greenland_ice_sheet_simply/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

clearly that is all propaganda from Big Oil... CONSENSUS!!!

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Science can't disprove science. Stop posting witchcraft.

 

[Bonestorm]

What I like best about this type of thread is the fact that if you actually look at the underlying research it almost never supports the conclusions and assertions made by the denialists in their reports on the research.

Pretty remarkable, really.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Even if the conclusion presented is true...so what?

Is saving Greenlandic ice the only reason we don't want the climate to change drastically?

These threads are desperate. It's really become impossible to have an honest, thoughtful conversation about climate change & pollution, fossil fuels, man's responsibility to the planet & the ramifications for humankind if we continue to overuse and deplete our resources.

 

[Bonestorm]

Even if the conclusion presented is true...so what?

Is saving Greenlandic ice the only reason we don't want the climate to change drastically?

These threads are desperate. It's really become impossible to have an honest, thoughtful conversation about climate change & pollution, fossil fuels, man's responsibility to the planet & the ramifications for humankind if we continue to overuse and deplete our resources.

The conclusion I was referring to is the 'there is no warming and if there is humans aren't causing and it and if we are its no big deal and if it is too bad we can't do much about it' thing.

 

[tinfoil]

first the alarmists cry for the ice, then they ask why we worry about it. LOL

 

[von_noobie]

To put in my 2 cents, Does global warming have an effect today on the way thing's occur? Yes how ever not to the extent that the 'Greenies' rant about. Do we need to fix it? Yes but let's be honest and not make up theories to be fact.

In Australia the Greenies claim the global warming is causing our droughts and sever bush fires yet they seem to ignore the fact that bush fires have been happening every year for as long as we can go back and that droughts usually occur on a sever scale here every 10-15 years. Just the natural cycle of the environment (mind you they will try and stop back burning which is meant to reduce the chance of bush fires occurring and/or spreading).

Do we need to tackle global warming due to the environmental risks or the human health risks? To me it is the later. The pollutants in the air seem to do more harm to the human body then the environment and that is the reason we should tackle it, Not for made up BS about environmental theories.

 

[Banned]

And how do we know that THIS data is correct? Did the core sample contain a thermometer from that era or something?

 

[cancel2 2022]

And how do we know that THIS data is correct? Did the core sample contain a thermometer from that era or something?

Efforts to extract a Greenland ice core with a complete record of the Eemian interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) have until now been unsuccessful. The response of the Greenland ice sheet to the warmer-than-present climate of the Eemian has thus remained unclear. Here we present the new North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (‘NEEM’) ice core and show only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming in the early Eemian. We reconstructed the Eemian record from folded ice using globally homogeneous parameters known from dated Greenland and Antarctic ice-core records. On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present. Extensive surface melt occurred at the NEEM site during the Eemian, a phenomenon witnessed when melt layers formed again at NEEM during the exceptional heat of July 2012. With additional warming, surface melt might become more common in the future.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html

 

[Bonestorm]

It's like, sure, sea levels were 4-8 meters higher than they are today, but Greenland didn't lose all it's ice so relax everyone.

Uh . . . what?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

To put in my 2 cents, Does global warming have an effect today on the way thing's occur? Yes how ever not to the extent that the 'Greenies' rant about. Do we need to fix it? Yes but let's be honest and not make up theories to be fact.

In Australia the Greenies claim the global warming is causing our droughts and sever bush fires yet they seem to ignore the fact that bush fires have been happening every year for as long as we can go back and that droughts usually occur on a sever scale here every 10-15 years. Just the natural cycle of the environment (mind you they will try and stop back burning which is meant to reduce the chance of bush fires occurring and/or spreading).

Do we need to tackle global warming due to the environmental risks or the human health risks? To me it is the later. The pollutants in the air seem to do more harm to the human body then the environment and that is the reason we should tackle it, Not for made up BS about environmental theories.

I don't really care about the AGW argument. It's not possible to prove one way or the other.

But we're losing vast stretches of water & habitat. In this generation, a lot of the world is simply dying away. We're on an unsustainable course, relying on finite sources of energy that pollute our environment in a big way, affecting our drinking water, food supply and the air we breathe.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Even if the conclusion presented is true...so what?

Is saving Greenlandic ice the only reason we don't want the climate to change drastically?

These threads are desperate. It's really become impossible to have an honest, thoughtful conversation about climate change & pollution, fossil fuels, man's responsibility to the planet & the ramifications for humankind if we continue to overuse and deplete our resources.

Ok, so he posts something that yet again shows the computer models of the global warming fearmongers are wrong... and it is desperate. Yet when global warming fear mongers post threads with no data, only opinions of scientists or government agencies who benefit from the massive amount of government funding 'studying' mans effect on the climate... those are super awesome?

How many times do the models have to be blown up before you accept they might just be flat out wrong?

Thoughtful conversation on climate change means throwing out that which is shown to be wrong. Not clinging to it no matter what evidence to the contrary appears.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The conclusion I was referring to is the 'there is no warming and if there is humans aren't causing and it and if we are its no big deal and if it is too bad we can't do much about it' thing.

LMAO... the king of straw men strikes again... tell us Dung... who has ever stated the above?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Ok, so he posts something that yet again shows the computer models of the global warming fearmongers are wrong... and it is desperate. Yet when global warming fear mongers post threads with no data, only opinions of scientists or government agencies who benefit from the massive amount of government funding 'studying' mans effect on the climate... those are super awesome?

How many times do the models have to be blown up before you accept they might just be flat out wrong?

Thoughtful conversation on climate change means throwing out that which is shown to be wrong. Not clinging to it no matter what evidence to the contrary appears.

Tom is no different from someone on the extreme AGW side - he just doesn't bother you, because only the AGW side bothers you. But both sides cherrypick, exaggerate & distort.

What is the OP supposed to 'disprove', anyway? I thought most on the side you support still accept that there is warming going on? Or is that changing now too?

 

[I'm Watermark]

first the alarmists cry for the ice, then they ask why we worry about it. LOL

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Tom is no different from someone on the extreme AGW side - he just doesn't bother you, because only the AGW side bothers you. But both sides cherrypick, exaggerate & distort.

What is the OP supposed to 'disprove', anyway? I thought most on the side you support still accept that there is warming going on? Or is that changing now too?

The OP once again shows that the AGW computer models are wrong.

Yes, there was indeed warming, especially throughout the late 80's and into the 90's. Then we maintained those warm levels for a decade+. The exact same thing I have stated over and over again. The point is that the models proclaiming 'man is primarily responsible' are not holding up. The data never supported them. The fear mongers continually ignore periods that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago that were warmer than now. Yet man survived. The planet survived.

If the CO2 models were accurate we should have seen more warming over the past decade. We didn't. The data above shows they are significantly over estimating what will happen to the ice in Greenland.

It isn't cherry picking to do a study of a particular claim and disprove it. That is how science is supposed to work. Scientist A comes up with a theory, provides how she/he came to that conclusion, shows all calculations and data and then puts if forth for others to scrutinize. If someone disproves Scientist A, then their data is scrutinized to once again validate or invalidate it.

Don't fall into the Dung world of straw man making. You have done so of late and it is really sad. You know I have supported the fight for cleaner air, water and land. The difference between us is that I see the AGW fear mongers as a detriment to the cause. You do not see them as such.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

The OP once again shows that the AGW computer models are wrong.

Yes, there was indeed warming, especially throughout the late 80's and into the 90's. Then we maintained those warm levels for a decade+. The exact same thing I have stated over and over again. The point is that the models proclaiming 'man is primarily responsible' are not holding up. The data never supported them. The fear mongers continually ignore periods that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago that were warmer than now. Yet man survived. The planet survived.

If the CO2 models were accurate we should have seen more warming over the past decade. We didn't. The data above shows they are significantly over estimating what will happen to the ice in Greenland.

It isn't cherry picking to do a study of a particular claim and disprove it. That is how science is supposed to work. Scientist A comes up with a theory, provides how she/he came to that conclusion, shows all calculations and data and then puts if forth for others to scrutinize. If someone disproves Scientist A, then their data is scrutinized to once again validate or invalidate it.

Don't fall into the Dung world of straw man making. You have done so of late and it is really sad. You know I have supported the fight for cleaner air, water and land. The difference between us is that I see the AGW fear mongers as a detriment to the cause. You do not see them as such.

That's really not what the OP shows, at all. Which particular models are you referring to? There are a bunch of them, you know.

But you & Tom will do the same thing that you hated from AGWers - cherrypick, and draw sweeping conclusions from isolated data - as well as misrepresent that data. You want so badly to just shut the other side up. You'll yell "consensus" too, if you have to.

Besides, Tom is a shill for the oil industry; you should know that by now.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's really not what the OP shows, at all. Which particular models are you referring to?

The model that shows a 3 degree rise would result in the melting of Greenlands ice. You know, the model they specifically mention in the OP? Have you even read it?

But you & Tom will do the same thing that you hated from AGWers - cherrypick, and draw sweeping conclusions from isolated data - as well as misrepresent that data. You want so badly to just shut the other side up. You'll yell "consensus" too, if you have to.

No Lorax. The study the OP refers to took a claim of the AGW crowd and disproved it with data. That is not cherry picking. That is showing that the particular model mentioned is wrong based on the study of the ice core they did.

Besides, Tom is a shill for the oil industry; you should know that by now.

does that make you a shill for the AGW government funded fear mongers?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

The model that shows a 3 degree rise would result in the melting of Greenlands ice. You know, the model they specifically mention in the OP? Have you even read it?

No Lorax. The study the OP refers to took a claim of the AGW crowd and disproved it with data. That is not cherry picking. That is showing that the particular model mentioned is wrong based on the study of the ice core they did.

does that make you a shill for the AGW government funded fear mongers?

The conclusion of the OP really says nothing about global warming. It isolates one possible effect that climate change could have on the planet & treats it like some sort of gospel that the overall conclusions as far as consequences go are false. This represents a very small piece of the larger POV on this topic, as well as the models you refer to.

Have you ever heard anyone say that every aspect of every forecasting model is 100% accurate as a predictor?