Greenland Has Been Cooling In Recent Years – 26 Of Its 47 Largest Glaciers Now Stable
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
That is actually a quote from the abstract of the article.
The article cites ECCO for data on the cooling of the Northern Atlantic. You haven't even read the article on Greenland. I'm sure you have no clue as to the data ECCO has about the oceans.
It appears to be a question, doesn't it? Yet you presented it -without attribution - as a conclusion.
I suppose you think there were SUVs in 1850?
Thanks for proving how stupid you really are. Are all conservatives as stupid as you are?
Let's look at the silliness of your statement by providing other stupid examples that use the "there is only one cause" idiocy you have introduced.
Since man dammed the Colorado with the Hoover dam that means no river was ever dammed by rock slides or beavers prior to man.
Since man plants corn with machines that means corn never grew before machines existed to plant it.
Since man uses electricity to start fires there has never been a fire started from lightning.
Thanks for playing, "How stupid can Legion look." Let's see what other depths you want to descend to.
You seem angry because I pointed out the ridiculousness of attributing your warmist beliefs to anthropogenic causes.
Your statement makes no sense.
My statement was not a question when I first made it.
It wasn't a quote so it didn't need to be attributed to anything.
"It seems" <--- is not the start of a sentence that includes a conclusion.
It was a statement about the article which you haven't read so I am unsure how you can say it is wrong without looking like a fool since the article uses data that shows that the ocean currents around Greenland have changed for several reasons.
You didn't point out anything but your own stupidity. When did I use the phrase "anthropogenic causes?" You are the one that said there can be only one cause for warming. I have never said that.
But it was one in the paper Y O U cited.
Yet you invested your entire argument on it, didn't you?
Is that so? It seems you don't understand that calling it a "statement" instead of a question (which the article poses) is disingenuous at best.
You have no idea what I have or haven't read. Clearly I have read your pitiful excuse for an argument.
I don't recall saying that, either. Can you cite the quote?
It seems there isn't a single person willing to actually read the science article and discuss its contents.
Certainly not Legion, who implies there is only one cause for global warming and then tries to deny he did just that.
Let me know when you have read the article, Legion, and then we can try to discuss it. For instance we could discuss how surface heat helped cool the ocean around Greenland by affecting convective mixing and buoyancy.
Certainly not Legion, who implies there is only one cause for global warming and then tries to deny he did just that.
Let me know when you have read the article, Legion, and then we can try to discuss it. For instance we could discuss how surface heat helped cool the ocean around Greenland by affecting convective mixing and buoyancy.
I don't see any evidence that I allegedly "implied" anything. What I did see is evidence that Y O U attempted to characterize a question as a conclusion.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
.
Meanwhile global warming is hitting Lebanon in a big way!!
The Arctic? No, the eastern coast of the Mediterranean - Lebanon. Bcharre-Ainata El Arez road on Mt Makmel in the north of Lebanon and 10 metres of snow there. May 19th.
Report: Lebanon Weather Forecast
Meanwhile global warming is hitting Lebanon in a big way!!
The Arctic? No, the eastern coast of the Mediterranean - Lebanon. Bcharre-Ainata El Arez road on Mt Makmel in the north of Lebanon and 10 metres of snow there. May 19th.
Report: Lebanon Weather Forecast
cancel2 2022
Canceled
NASA GISS use a single temperature station to represent up to 1200 kilometres of Arctic wilderness, then employs climate models to help fill in the blanks, this process known as in-filling is highly dubious to say the least.
The sudden thickening of the Jakobshavn glacier has taken climate scientists completely by surprise and they are desperate to find an explanation. In the 2000s, Jakobshavn Isbrae was the fastest flowing ice stream in Greenland travelling up to 17km a year. This has now spectacularly stopped and indeed reversed. Is it due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or is there another cause?
The sudden thickening of the Jakobshavn glacier has taken climate scientists completely by surprise and they are desperate to find an explanation. In the 2000s, Jakobshavn Isbrae was the fastest flowing ice stream in Greenland travelling up to 17km a year. This has now spectacularly stopped and indeed reversed. Is it due to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or is there another cause?
Last edited:
Really? Are you sure?
Not at all. You hare investing your entire argument on it since you haven't read the paper. The paper states that warming is part of the reason for the cooling of the oceans.
What question do you think the the article poses? Since you haven't read the paper, you are arguing something that you know nothing about.
It is clear you haven't read the paper otherwise you wouldn't be questioning whether warming was part of the cause of the ocean cooling around Greenland. My statements are supported by the paper you haven't read.
Then perhaps you can give another reason for your comment about SUVs in 1850. It was clear what you were implying. I am open to other explanations such as "you forgot your meds today."
What question did I characterize as a solution?
The scientific paper lists several causes for the ocean cooling in the Jakobshavn fjord including the temperature change associated with each cause. Perhaps you should read the paper then you wouldn't make so many basic mistakes.
Local weather is hardly indicative of global temperature variations.
Wow. You just make stuff up.
From the actual scientific paper in Nature-
How can something that has been reversed still be decelerating?
According to the data in the paper the flow speed was about 4.5km/yr in 2018.
The full paper can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...leration_and_thinning_as_regional_ocean_cools
cancel2 2022
Canceled
To clarify for you, the glacier was previously melting and receding. This has now stopped and it is again flowing towards the sea. Since the 1980s, waters have been growing warmer around Baffin Bay, where the glacier meets the sea. But, recent NASA data reveal that, in 2016, ocean currents grew colder. The seawater around the mouth of the glacier is now the coolest since the 1980s. NASA is attributing this to the NAO, only time will tell.
I suspect from the sarcastic nature of your posts that this is Stringy in a new guise. Please answer yes or no, else you will be ignored in future.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It was predicted more than decade ago that ski resorts in North Lebanon would have to close due to global warming. Was that weather or climate change?
This is from the paper -
The Jakobshavn glacier like all glaciers flows. When a glacier recedes it is that the front edge of the glacier is melting faster than the flow of the glacier. It is not that the glacier stops flowing. What was melting was the ice shelf of the glacier that extended into the fjord. The acceleration of that melt was caused by the increase in ocean temperature. When the ice shelf collapses it no longer holds the glacier back so the flow will often increase which is what happened. The Jakobshavn glacier was losing mass because the flow had accelerated in the 90's into the 00's. It is because of the increased flow that it was melting. It has now started to thicken because the flow has slowed.
Here is a simplistic explanation of glacier flow-
https://www.asf.alaska.edu/glacier-power/how-do-glaciers-move/
The cooler waters reduced the rate of submarine melting.
I have no idea who Stringy is and I am certainly not him/her. The fact that you spout shit as if you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't leads me to think several people have pointed out your ignorance. Perhaps the fault is with you and not that everyone who disagrees with you is the same person. Perhaps you should read the actual science instead of just reading a headline and jumping to a conclusion that it agrees with your ill conceived ideas.