Correction: My post a few days ago implied implied that the Washington Post celebrated Gore's Nobel by publishing four items repeating the falsehood that a judge found nine errors in the movie. This was wrong. I missed their editorial on the Nobel Prize where they also took a swipe at Gore:
His movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the effects of climate change, was a box-office hit and an Oscar winner. That achievement is impressive and important, notwithstanding factual misstatements and exaggerations such as the "nine significant errors" in the film cited by a British judge Wednesday.
No, the judge did not rule that there were "nine significant errors" in the film. The editorial does not mention that the judge decided that it was "broadly accurate". Nor does it mention all the climate scientists who endorsed the accuracy of the movie.
So five times in one day the Post published this falsehood. There seems to be a compulsive need by Post journalists to put balance positive stories about Gore by including negative factoids. Fortunately, the Washington Post has a media reporter, one Howard Kurtz, and he was on the case on CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: OK. (INAUDIBLE). Amanda Carpenter, in all of the coverage about Gore and winning this prize and global warming and his movie "An Inconvenient Truth," it has all been really, really positive. I've heard very little discussion, for example, of a British judge finding this week that there were nine factual errors in "An Inconvenient Truth" in a lawsuit in that country. What do you make of the coverage?
Ahh, according to Kurtz the problem was that the media didn't repeat this falsehood often enough. The five times the Post mentioned it was insufficient. And notice that he asked the question of Amanda Carpenter of townhall.com, where Gore is considered to be the anti-Christ.
AMANDA CARPENTER, TOWNHALL.COM: Well, I'm not sure if we're reading all the same things as each other. I mean, in conservative circles, certainly people are very eager to point out the problems with the movie. They say that this British judge that found nine inaccuracies in it, this is a film that is riddled with errors that has essentially won the Nobel Peace Prize. And I think there is a legitimate question, does this invalidate the integrity of that prize?
Yes, even Carpenter couldn't agree with him on this one. Though maybe Rush Limbaugh mentioned it less often than the Post.
KURTZ: And to what extent are those legitimate questions in your view being reflected in the coverage of Al Gore in the last two days?
Kurtz tries again to get her to say that the media is biased towards Gore...
CARPENTER: Not enough. The Washington Post did a pretty good fact check on this online which I thought was great. This has been bubbling the blogs a lot. You know, when we see the other things, NASA having to revise climate change data that was caught by a Canadian blogger a few months ago. So this stuff is bubbling there. I wish it got more coverage in the mainstream media. You know, there were people that did not get the prize. The Polish woman that saved 2,500 children from the Holocaust got bumped for this for essentially a piece of film.
That would be the fact check that didn't check any facts. Now that he has got Carpenter to agree that the media is biased towards Gore, Kurtz moves onto the next panellist:
KURTZ: Mark Halperin, just a quick question on this because I might need to move on, is there any guilt among some journalists about the way they kind of made fun of Al Gore in 2000, the sighing and all of that, now kind of giving him his moment in the sun?
Some journalists? I guess Kurtz doesn't want to admit that he was one of them:
HALPERIN: I think there is no question that people feel bad about what happened in 2000 to some extent. And I think also you look at what a lot of journalists feel about the Bush administration and they say, you know, maybe the wrong guy actually got in the White House.
That's not a view that I'm putting forward, but I think it is a view a lot of journalists have, and I think it's one that does drive a little bit of this Gore love affair that's in the press, not just this last week but every time he does anything or wins -- gets another award for the mantle.
I see. He got some positive coverage because the press loves him, not because winning a Nobel prize is a genuine achievement. The third member of Kurtz's panel, by the way, was Jonathan Capehart, member of Washington Post editorial board, who presumably helped write the anti-Gore editorial at the top of this post.
The next day, on his Media Backtalk, Kurtz is asked
New York: Howard: Enjoyed you on "The Daily Show" the other night. Here's my question: Several news outlets, CNN and ABC among them, while reporting on Al Gore's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, also added "complementary" stories about "inaccuracies" in his film, as well as about how how the award has "divided" public opinion. It seems that that the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party and the environmental know-nothings have got the mainstream media running scared. They can't run a story about Al Gore and Global Warming without somehow trying to appease these lunatics. Don't you feel that this is a case not of "balanced reporting" but of trying to avoid attacks from an extremist faction?
Odd, the day before Kurtz said that there was very little discussion and complained that the coverage of Gore had been really, really, positive.
Howard Kurtz: Glad you caught my sit-down with Jon Stewart. I don't think it's appeasing lunatics to report that not everyone is cheering the Nobel Prize awarded to Gore. While there is certainly a scientific consensus that global warming exists, a day earlier The Post and other news organizations reported that a British judge had ruled there were nine factual errors in "An Inconvenient Truth." I congratulate Gore on winning the prestigious prize, but that doesn't mean he or his movie are above criticism.
The Post did indeed report that the judge ruled that there were nine factual errors in AIT. Of course it wasn't true, as I might have mentioned before. And no-one is saying that Gore is above criticism, but questioning why the stories had to contain an anti-Gore factoid of dubious relevance. If a reporter really wanted to to provide information to his or readers about the scientific accuracy of Gore's movie, why not get the opinion of a scientist rather than a judge?
Well, it seems that's not the Post's way of doing things. RealClimate:
Update 10/18/07: We are very disappointed that the Washington Post has declined to run an op-ed placing the alleged 9 'errors' in a proper scientific context, despite having run an extremely misleading news article last week entitled "UK Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors".
The Post's Joel Achenbach joined in on his blog, dismissing criticism of the Post's coverage as "craziness":
But there's craziness all over: Even the mildest criticism of Gore can get his fans in a lather. The other day my colleague Michael Dobbs wrote a Fact Checker column on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." Some readers howled in protest ("How do I get my parrot to crap on the on-line version of the Washington Post?" one said). This will shock you, but some readers occasionally resort to ad hominem attacks. (Especially the ones who speak Latin.)
There is a notion among some bloggers that the Post has an anti-Gore agenda.
Could that be true? And do corporate bosses tell us what to write about global warming?
If so, I've never gotten those memos. (Am I not important enough?)
The Post is a big place, with many departments, and no central authority dictates how we cover issues such as global warming. News and Editorial are separate departments and don't confer on such things (and by the way, just in case anyone was wondering, the editorial board endorsed Gore in 2000 -- "surely among the best prepared and most intelligent nominees of recent years").
I don't think there are memos telling Post journalists what to write, but somehow, when Gore got his Nobel, they all wrote the same thing. Five pieces mentioning the falsehood that a judge ruled that there were nine scientific errors in his movie. And Kurtz complaining that the coverage was too positive and did mention the judge's decision enough. Achenbach works at the Post, so has more insight into the thought processes of journalists there. Perhaps he can explain what is going on. I stuck up for Achenbach in this post, because the conventions of American journalism prevent him from making an outright declaration that Bill Gray is crazy and the CEI dishonest, and the reader could draw that conclusion from his article. But by the same token, all the stories that keep repeating "judge says nine errors", are telling the reader that Gore is a big exaggerator and that his movie can't be trusted.
Finally, I should note that after being criticized, Michael Dobbs did improve, by actually fact checking the judge's decision, and posting a response from Gore.
Perhaps a way to "frame" the "9 errors" is to count the facts presented in the film. If there are 100 total facts, Gore gets an 'A-'. If there are 500 facts, Gore gets an 'A'. What does the WaPo get for its reporting on Iraq in 2002-3?
gawd, that footage ruined my day ...
What would happen if greenland would melt?
Holland would drown.
Wat would happen if pigs could fly?
We would eat pigs wings.
Valid scientific questions, valid scientific answers.
What would happen if greenland would melt? Holland would drown. Wat would happen if pigs could fly? We would eat pigs wings.
well, i find it rather weird that you borrowed an anti-nuclear slogan for this specific purpose.
perhaps you might ponder how those grilled pig wings will taste, while doing some surfing around the new coast guard arctic base...
http://tinyurl.com/2ylj5y
This is your brain on denialism, kids.
Maybe you should actually, you know, do a little reading on the subject?
sigh a waste of effort I'm sure
Tim
WaPo is bascially right on this. They like a lot of other people think Gore is stooging us. He produces a Doco the topic about which he has no formal qualifications, gets an academy award and then a "peace" prize. Sorry if they are impressed.
WaPo is a pretty liberal paper. They were close to Gore in all those years he skulked around Washington. Perhaps they were't impressed by him and regard Gore as more of joke than anyhting else.
One can still be a warmer and think Gore is a snakeoiler.
Anyone ever read Earth in the Balance? It's a scream. The guy seemed to be dealing with real demons in his head at the time he wrote it.
If only Bush was elected president of the United States of Baseball.
WaPo is bascially right on this. They like a lot of other people think Gore is stooging us. He produces a Doco the topic about which he has no formal qualifications, gets an academy award and then a "peace" prize.
Jc, you think that the majority of people producing a documentary have a FORMAL QUALIFICATION on the subject presented?
or were you just making another one of your "none-points"?
Sadly, JC has no background in climate subject so is in no position to judge.
Jc has no background in basic logic. Plus, he makes up lies about Gore and then runs away when is proved to be wrong. Too bad he comes back though.
Holocaust children bumped? Wha...? So Gore, by winning the prize, is now a Holocaust denier? That women is shameless!
Please people! Troll... Don't feed the troll! Don't feed the troll! For the love of god, let's not lose another thread!
Dough, Can you show me a distribution map of the ice quakes? Call me a troll I happen to live in Holland, and it's my government that has to take action against sea level rise.
Seven meter rise is not considered at all in the dutch policy.
Jc wrote, WaPo is a pretty liberal paper.
Nope---certainly not the op-ed section. For example, they supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq, and they continue to defend that decision despite the deplorable ensuing disaster.
They were close to Gore in all those years he skulked around Washington. Perhaps they were't impressed by him and regard Gore as more of joke than anyhting else.
I'm not, myself, that impressed with Gore. The point is that in 2000 the mainstream media in the US displayed a strong bias in favor of Bush over Gore. Furthermore, while Gore isn't necessarily all that impressive, Bush is a raving lunatic who has involved the US in a war and costly occupation that's completely contrary to its national interest, yet the Post and other media outlets hardly show any sign of displaying the sort of animus they focussed on Gore or indeed (and especially) Clinton.
Dough, Can you show me a distribution map of the ice quakes? Call me a troll I happen to live in Holland, and it's my government that has to take action against sea level rise. Seven meter rise is not considered at all in the dutch policy.
here is the link.
http://tinyurl.com/ypmmay
now what?
here is the link. http://tinyurl.com/ypmmay
Icequakes on the edges of greenland indicate what?
Based on 15 years, with an undecided mass balance of Greenland? Interestingly the measurements also start at the coldest year of the last 30 years, so looks like an endpoint bias. Sure if you then extrapolate the trend...
I'm sorry, you still have not convinced me that a "disaster" is happening.
Watch Al Gore spinning this in Amsterdam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInIgXn70Ys
Icequake item starts at 2min 50 sec
Icequakes on the edges of greenland indicate what? Based on 15 years, with an undecided mass balance of Greenland? Interestingly the measurements also start at the coldest year of the last 30 years, so looks like an endpoint bias. Sure if you then extrapolate the trend... I'm sorry, you still have not convinced me that a "disaster" is happening.
i am not trying to convince you of anything.
you did ask for a MAP on ICE QUAKES, i provided a map. (funny enough i simply typed "ice quakes map" into a google picture search..)
i see, a four times increase in ice quakes is not troubling you, because they happen at the edge f greenland? ever watched an ice cube melt?
Watch Al Gore spinning this in Amsterdam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInIgXn70Ys
Gore is not spinning anything in hat video. he is giving exactly the numbers that my link is giving you.
if you have different numbers, BRING THEM ON!
WaPo is a pretty liberal paper. -Jc
WaPo's op-ed section is a trainwreck.
Whilst I don't have a problem with Al Gore being prominent and active on Global Warming I do see how his partisan political history is alienating a lot of Americans who need to be onboard on this issue. I just suspect that anyone who might achieve similar prominence will suffer just as much vitriolic attack as he does, from the same sources. For those whom this issue is viewed as entirely partisan political this isn't going to change unless and until it's a Right Conservative who is standing in Gore's place. Then parts of the Left political machine will undoubtedly be on the attack! Could prove interesting when that happens - but the possibility of a non-partisan united approach would be very welcome.
Ken,
Thank you for proposing that only a non-existent non-partisan alien being will be able to convince the public about global warming. I too find it frustrating that so many advocates for varying causes also have opinions on political matters, and shockingly those involved in public policy also have interest in politics. It just makes things so messy. I prefer your way.
Maybe people don't recall back far enough.
"President Bush announced today that the United States has agreed with other industrialized nations that stabilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions should be achieved as soon as possible. The United States also agreed that it is timely to investigate quantitative targets to limit or reduce carbon dioxide emissions."
Oops, that was *1989*, and it was George H. W. Bush:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765
According to Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science", p48:
"Today, scientists largely remember the first President Bush as a friend."
If people want to understand how the current mess happened, that's a fine book.
There is no earthly reason that science should be such a partisan issue ... except that it is advantageous for certain people to make it so, just as happened with smoking-disease.
I think the Republican party got hijacked by one of its wings, with very bad results, some of which are going to be showing up for decades. Personally, I prefer more-or-less-balanced political parties. Meanwhile, there do exist Republicans who are with it on climate change (Senators McCain & Snowe come to mind), and Democrats who aren't (Dingell).
People might find it interesting to read a blog that includes:
"The last major state-built surface storage projects were completed 34 years ago, and their capacity inadequate for our population's needs and the effects of global warming."
http://www.cagop.org/blog/2007/10/republicans-we-need-surface-storage-f…
I.e., CA Republicans and Democrats unsurprisingly have bitter arguments about *how* to deal with the problem, but *not* that there's a problem.
On the other hand, Gov Rick Perry (R) of Texas said in a speech to CA Republicans:
"And since when did the field of science become the sole purview of left-wing politicians? I don't know about you, but I've heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I'm starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide."
http://www.rickperry.org/ca-convention-speech
Presumably people will *not* forget Gingrich (for defunding the OTA), James Inhofe, Joe Barton, and George W. Bush ... and Perry is trying to join that group. Maybe Galveston can build a monument to these folks.
Shorter John.
Please, please, GOP why can't you just look like the Dems. That way we can consolidate Congress's popularity at 11% for all time.
i see, a four times increase in ice quakes is not troubling you, because they happen at the edge f greenland? ever watched an ice cube melt?
No need to shout, see elewhere in this blog how Tim Lambert reacts on the phrase, "The earth has been cooling since 1998". That's also end point bias.
Some end point bias is not as biased as other end point bias. :-D
Re Gore Blimey on Kili and Lake Chad:
As luck would have it, I climbed Mt Kilimanjaro in 1971, and later was sent in 1986 by the EU to verify even then reports that Lake Chad had already disappeared. Visiting Google Earth just now, I find that the snows of Kili are more extensive now than in 1971, and likewise with the shores of Lake Chad (even in 1986 we had to retreat as the Lake suddenly began to rise). Oscar and Nobel committees are innocent of the word "cycle". The only surprise is that this year's science and economics Nobel winners did not first have to prove their merits with Oscars for their song and dance routines.
with Hans Erren and Tim Curtin two true masters of "denialist speech" have entered this comment section. watch and learn!
both of them are using the ancient "CASTING DOUBT WITHOUT MAKING A POINT" tactic.
Hans Erren:
No need to shout, see elewhere in this blog how Tim Lambert reacts on the phrase, "The earth has been cooling since 1998". That's also end point bias. Some end point bias is not as biased as other end point bias. :-D
the impresion that Erren is trying to invoke in the reader is: "the greenland ice shield is NOT melting."
he does not say so, as it would be simply FALSE.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/ocp2007/gallery-large/thumbnails/OC…
so he is just casting doubt, by claiming some endpoint bias.
the comparison with a world temperature curve starting in 1998 till today is complete nonsense. anyone could counter such an attempt with a link to any of the many temperature curves, for example this one:
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~camercha/climate/images/satellite_data.jpg
so to make a valid point, Erren needs to give a SIMILAR curve for ice quakes in greenland, showing that the rise of the number o quakes is caused by ENDPOINT BIAS. he can NOT.
so the questins to ask Hans Erren are:
1. do you belive that the Ice sheet on greenland has been shrinking over the last few deacdes?
2. can you present relyable data, that supports your claim that the increase in ice quake number is only because of endpoint bias?
listen to the defeaning silence, or read the evasive answers!
Tim Curtin is using the exactly same tactic:
As luck would have it, I climbed Mt Kilimanjaro in 1971, and later was sent in 1986 by the EU to verify even then reports that Lake Chad had already disappeared. Visiting Google Earth just now, I find that the snows of Kili are more extensive now than in 1971, and likewise with the shores of Lake Chad (even in 1986 we had to retreat as the Lake suddenly began to rise). Oscar and Nobel committees are innocent of the word "cycle".
while Oscar and Nobel commitees surely know about the meaning of the word "cycle", Tim obviously is not. seasonal cycle" is beyond his horizon, obviously.
again, Tim Curtin is trying o leave an impression in the reader:
1. the glaciar on Kilimanjaro is not melting
and
2. lake chad is not shrinking.
again he is not saying so, as it is obviously false.
there is alot of photo material on Kilimanjaro. start here:
http://www.unep.org/geo/geo_ice/images/full/6b_kilimanjaro.png
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/melting_snow_on_kilimanjaro
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Graphics/tn_MtKilimanjaro.jpg
the same is true for lake Chad:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/landsat_chad…
http://www.grida.no/climate/vitalafrica/english/14.htm
it is rather obvious, that long term satelite data is SUPERIOR to the observation of two data points by Tim Curtin.
in both cases we are interested in the "permanent ice" or "permanent water" scales. the best way to achieve that is by measuring the MINIMAL extension on a satelite picture.
the area covered is extremely unregular and might change massively from year to year.
so unless Tim Curtin was there on the day of minmal extension, and was able to measure the exact extension of ice and water frm the ground, his observations are completely MEANINGLESS.
Sod, don't go knocking them around too much. If they leave, we won't be able to make fun of their hapless tactics.
Best,
D
Interestingly, while it is true that the choice of 1998 (a strong El Niño year) as a starting point introduces a strong bias against a warming trend, even with that bias the warming trend is statistically significant! That's true of HadCRU as well as NASA GISS, and it's true of the satellite as well as the surface measurements. Climate denialists just don't have anywhere left to hide -- thus, the focus on Al Gore's house.
Pinko, Gore has convinced a lot of people. To others he's a Democrat! I suggest there is room for more people from the Right to stand up on this issue, and they might have more success shifting those that see this primarily as about political ideology and are guided by the heavyweights of their "side". The heels dug in, rather believe it's a left/green/anti-merica conspiracy types may not be convinced, but their numbers and noisiness might decline if it's someone with some "Right" credentials, rather than a face they love to hate, telling them stuff. Perhaps bi-partisan rather than non-partisan.
1. do you belive that the Ice sheet on greenland has been shrinking over the last few deacdes?
2. can you present relyable data, that supports your claim that the increase in ice quake number is only because of endpoint bias?
"It's too early for conclusions."
I listen to Hans Oerlemans who also says that the whole Greenland story is one big blown up hype. And he is the dutch leading glaciologist who has enough of the IPCC politics.
Sorry in dutch, Oerlemans commenting on Icequake news:
http://www.nrc.nl/wetenschap/article267988.ece
"But the annual number of icequakes is only three years rising significantly, so it is way too early for a conclusion, it could stop tomorrow"
If you were a dutchman, who would you prefer to listen to? A former vice president of the USA or a leading dutch professor in glaciology?
No, Greenland is not considered a threat in particular not from people that can't make proper maps, but play colour by numbers to push an agenda.
addendum current research:
Regional modelling of Greenland surface mass balance for key episodes in the past and future
Dr. M.R. van den Broeke, Drs. W.J. van de Berg
15-10-2007 to 15-10-2010
The Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) contains enough water to raise global sea level by about 7 m. Recent research shows that meltwater that has formed at the ice sheet surface drains to the bed of the glacier, accelerating the ice flow. As a result, the glacier thins, the surface lowers, melting increases and the cycle starts anew. This positive feedback between surface climate and ice dynamics is part of the mounting evidence that large ice volumes such as the GrIS could react much faster to a change in climate than has been assumed thus far. In spite of the potential threat this poses for low-lying countries such as the Netherlands, it is still unknown whether the GrIS is growing or shrinking under the present climate conditions and how it has contributed to sea level change in the past and will contribute to sea level change in the future.
A crucial boundary condition for the accurate modelling of past, present and future volume changes of the GrIS is the surface mass balance, comprising the sum of all mass fluxes towards (solid precipitation) and away (melt, sublimation, erosion) from the ice sheet surface. Because reliable GrIS surface mass balance fields are not available, we do not know the volume of the GrIS and its contribution to sea level changes during the previous interglacial (the Eemian, 125,000 years ago) or during the last glacial maximum (LGM, some 21,000 years ago), nor can we predict with any certainty how the GrIS will behave in a (future) enhanced greenhouse climate.
http://www.nwo.nl/projecten.nsf/pages/2300134959
But the annual number of icequakes is only three years rising significantly, so it is way too early for a conclusion, it could stop tomorrow
Fellow Pomeiians! The ground rumbling for the past few weeks means nothing! It could stop tomorrow! Do not fear! Instead, buy my lovely fired clay vessels at a discount! I also have strong, secure hemmmmmpen rrrrrope at a fair price! And linen! Feel this hand!
Han, your dipsh*t logic is a few clowns short of a circus. Who believes this malarkey anyway? Certainly those that do live in their parents' basement and have no access to decision-makers. Sheesh.
Best,
D
sure D,
In spite of the potential threat this poses for low-lying countries such as the Netherlands, it is still unknown whether the GrIS is growing or shrinking under the present climate conditions and how it has contributed to sea level change in the past and will contribute to sea level change in the future.
If you were a dutchman, who would you prefer to listen to? Chicken little or the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific research?
"It's too early for conclusions."
nice, you kept silent and you evaded. funny.
you notice that your answer actually is NOT an answer to my second question. let me repeat it:
2. can you present relyable data, that supports your claim that the increase in ice quake number is only because of endpoint bias?
if you claim endpoint bias, you MUST know, that there is additional data not being used. without additional data, there is NO endpoint bias! bring it on!
"But the annual number of icequakes is only three years rising significantly, so it is way too early for a conclusion, it could stop tomorrow"
this is total nonsense.
the numbers i provided to you above, show a steady increase over 12 years, with a small dent in 2000/2001.
in the first seven years, the numbers TRIPLED!
the roof has been leaking more every year over the last 12. but it COULD stop tomorrow...
If you were a dutchman, who would you prefer to listen to? Chicken little or the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific research?
i would listen to the person providing HARD data. so far only i have done that, you have not.
nationality is an IDIOTIC argument, talking about trust.
Please don't call me an idiot I hold an MSc in geophysics and I know more about earthquakes than you.
1992 was the coldest year, so no icequakes were reported because the ice didn't move in 1992. However the ice did move before 1992, there are no ice quakes reported before 1992 because no sensors were available, the magnitude of the ice quakes is between 1 and 3 on the Richter scale which is below the noise level of the global seismic network. Also if you look at the graph it isn't updated after 2005. The quakes are only at the locations where ice speed is large and is a direct result of the calving not the cause.
So no we don't have data before 1992 because ice quakes are weak.
bladibladibla the sky is falling.
not.
" I hold an MSc in geophysics and I know more about earthquakes than you."
Wow, then why do you say stupid things?
In a flexible, adaptive management regime, certainty is not needed. Resilience is needed Flexibility is needed. Prediction requires certainty, but if one is monitoring the ice sheet and has educated the populace about the dangers, then society can respond.
It is not necessary to know everything to be prepared to act, although some with letters after their name want to spin it that way.
Best,
D
Hans Erren:
The paper you cite seems to be in agreement with Gore in the movie - if the Greenland ice shelf (at some unspecified point in the future) sea level will rise by 7 meters.
The website you link seems to think that getting good data for better modelling of the future behavior of that sheet is pretty damn important to figure out if and when that may happen. Not dismissing the possibility or probability at all.
Please don't call me an idiot
i did not. let me repeat what i said:
nationality is an IDIOTIC argument, talking about trust.
I hold an MSc in geophysics and I know more about earthquakes than you.
i did not notice that so far in our discussion. i never claimed that i m an expert on earthquakes. you asked for a map of ice quakes, i provided one. then you tried to belittle my source with weird arguments.
However the ice did move before 1992, there are no ice quakes reported before 1992 because no sensors were available, ... Also if you look at the graph it isn't updated after 2005.
this is you "endpoint bias" claim. it doesn t make any sense, BECAUSE there is no Data before 1993 and the publishing date of 2006 makes 2005 the last data point.
to claim "end point bias", when all existing data is presented and shows a CONTINUOS CLIMB does not make any sense.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/ice-quakes-mar06.htm
the magnitude of the ice quakes is between 1 and 3 on the Richter scale which is below the noise level of the global seismic network.
the reason for this is, that ice quakes happen SLOWER than earthquakes.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/ice-quakes-oct03.htm
bladibladibla the sky is falling.
who said so? all that we are telling you is, that the number of ice quakes has SIGNIFICANTLY increased. this is in line with temperature measurement, melting observation, sea ice reduction, CO2 increase and climate models.
So, wanna bet there were icequakes on Greenland in 2007? I'd even put up a euro or two on the proposition that there were more in 2007.
Hans Erren posted this quote above "In spite of the potential threat this poses for low-lying countries such as the Netherlands, it is still unknown whether the GrIS [Greenland ice sheet] is growing or shrinking under the present climate conditions"
Actually, that is not an accurate statement. The Greenland Ice Sheet has been shrinking -- at least over the past few years. This has been measured with GRACE
According to NASA
"In the Arctic, for example, GRACE has found that the ice sheet that covers most of Greenland is shrinking. Measurements of decreasing gravity over the ice sheet, thus indicating a decrease in the ice sheet's mass, showed a loss of about 150 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2006. Melting ice sheets and glaciers contribute to rising sea level worldwide. The melting Greenland ice sheet contributes about 0.3 millimeters per year to a rising global sea level. GRACE continues its measurements to understand whether this rate of sea level rise is increasing or decreasing."
"So, wanna bet there were icequakes on Greenland in 2007? I'd even put up a euro or two on the proposition that there were more in 2007."
I'll take the bet, eli, only on condition you offer double those odds there were earth quakes in Japan.
I'll take the bet, eli, only on condition you offer double those odds there were earth quakes in Japan.
could someone please explain to Jc how betting works? that people in general want THEIR bet, not some random other one?
one of these days he is going to lose either money or teeth, when overing a hedge fund bet at a horserace...
It may be a WaPo war on Algore's science, but it certainly is a academic war on James D. Watson. Brillant work guys. I hope you're proud of yourselves again.
Tim,
That's a story for you..... the silencing of james D Watson for even daring to speak his mind. And I thought it was only Jim Hansen being "silenced". Absolute, golden, delicious irony. Way to go fellas.
Denialist rhetorical tactic #3: change the subject.
Best,
D
"the silencing of james D Watson for even daring to speak his mind."
Actually Watson says he was misquoted and totally repudiates both the specific statement and the inference that Africans are genetically inferior.
Are you calling him a liar?
Hans,
"Some end point bias is not as biased as other end point bias. "- yes, typically end point bias employed in support of the shorter term trends is more biased. At 30 years, I think we're good.
As an aside, is it your position that if and when we know for sure that the Greenland Ice Sheet is destabilizing and on a path toward significant melt as a result of anthropogenic global warming that we will have time to alter the climate in such a way as to stop it?
Have a think about that for a second. While you're at it, it's probably worth bearing in mind that 125K years ago, at temperatures one or two degrees north of where we are at present, sea levels were- u guessed it- 6m higher than at present. As an American living well clear of sea level, I would rather listen to reasonable argument than Pollyanna's dim wit.
Hans claimed "However the ice did move before 1992, there are no ice quakes reported before 1992 because no sensors were available, the magnitude of the ice quakes is between 1 and 3 on the Richter scale which is below the noise level of the global seismic network.'
According to the Lamont Doherty Observatory at Columbia University,
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news/2006/03_23_06.htm
"Seismologists at Columbia University and Harvard University have found a new indicator that the Earth is warming: "glacial earthquakes" caused when the rivers of ice lurch unexpectedly and produce temblors as strong as magnitude 5.1 on the moment-magnitude scale,"
"Although Greenland is not known as a hotbed of traditional seismic activity caused by the grinding of the Earth's tectonic plates, seismometers worldwide detected 182 earthquakes there between January 1993 and October 2005. Ekström, Nettles and Tsai examined the 136 best-documented of these seismic events, ranging in magnitude from 4.6 to 5.1. All were found to have originated at major valleys draining the Greenland Ice Sheet, implicating glacial activity in the seismic disturbances."
" repudiates both the specific statement and the inference that Africans are genetically inferior."
He never even implied they were inferior, Goldiechops. Are you sure you're not projecting your own bias towards Africans here? Certainly James Watson never said anything remotely like that.
The alleged statement was that thye were "less intelligent".
" Are you sure you're not projecting your own bias towards Africans here? :
You you sure that you don't really really want to believe thaqt it's those poor dumb darkies what ain't as bright as us what are to blame for Africa's woes so you can continue to believe in your libertarian utopia?
Gouldiechops:
Watson was making a reasonable observation in that we are not allowing for obvious differences when we try to help them. That is a perfectly reasonable ondservation. From that comment no one could deduce that Watson is a racist which makes me think you're the one projecting your own prejudices onto James Watson. Well done. Great achievement. You're now a denialist to boot.
"Watson was making a reasonable observation in that we are not allowing for obvious differences when we try to help them"
1. Watson insists he said nothing of the sort.
2. WATSON said the statement attributed to him was racist.
So go tell him he's a liar.
Gouldiechops
Here, knock yourself out.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119331451684871240.html?mod=googlenews_…
And remember, if you get caught in bed with a gal and your wife walks in , it's always best to deny it and accuse her eyes of lying to her.
HI ALL
HANS, YOU ARE PUSHING S*IT (DANNOUT SPEAK) UPHILL POSTING AT THIS SITE.
ALL OF THE NON EDUCATED ROBOTS KNOWING EVERYTHING ABOUT GW IS REAL AMUSING, MAYBE THEY ARE TRYING TO GET ON THE IPCC PANELS, NEED A FREEBE IN SOME EXOTIC DESTINATION BURNING HEAPS OF CO2 GETTING THERE.
KEEP TROLLING HERE, GOOD FOR A LAUGH.
IT IS GOOD TO SEE THAT PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND ARE STARTING TO WAKE UP TO GW, WONDERING WHY TAXATION IS THE ANSWER UNDER A QUITE REPRESSIVE SOCIALIST REGIME.
NEXT YOU KNOW, US SCIENTISTS WILL BE LOCKED UP LIKE JEWS IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP AS WE ARE DENIERS.
BEING A SCIENTIST IT REALLY AMUSES ME THAT GOVERNMANTS ARE SUCKED IN BY THE GW BULLSHIT.
REGARDS FROM A NON WARMING NEW ZEALAND
PETER BICKLE
Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1756 - 1758
DOI: 10.1126/science.1122112
Seasonality and Increasing Frequency of Greenland Glacial Earthquakes
Göran Ekström, Meredith Nettles, Victor C. Tsai1
Some glaciers and ice streams periodically lurch forward with sufficient force to generate emissions of elastic waves that are recorded on seismometers worldwide. Such glacial earthquakes on Greenland show a strong seasonality as well as a doubling of their rate of occurrence over the past 5 years. These temporal patterns suggest a link to the hydrological cycle and are indicative of a dynamic glacial response to changing climate conditions.
However everybody conversant with Greenland temperature knows that 1992 was an anomalous cold year. Any timeseries starting then gives significant results.
Conclusion: end point bias.
see also:
http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr10/nr10_p57-60.pdf
Another brrrrill-yunt example of Errendipity from hapless Hans.
You really need a new gig, Hans.
Best,
D