Greenland ice sheet melting faster than previously thought. PLEASE RECYCLE!

asdfsdfa wrote:

Oh, that's rich. NASA, funded by the U.S. government, would have no reasons to be biased in the way they present their "data."

Yes, of course. It is all a grand conspiracy.

No Way wrote:RCG, if you truly wanted to see the evidence, you would have looked it up. It is very easy to find. Since you're just sitting here waiting for it, here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Now go ahead and refute all of it with nonsense, I'm waiting eagerly to read your response.

Hey, why the change in tone? No need to get snippy, thanks for the link, I'm having a quick look now.

100 years worth of bad, individually collected and full of bias and intangibles, is not enough data to prove anything. We have no idea if the earth is warming, and if it is we cannot prove it, let alone do much about it. We could all buy electric cars, and burn coal to keep them powered up, yeah lets do that. We live in a consumer driven society fed by fordism. That is not going to change.

No Way wrote:Since you're just sitting here waiting for it, here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Now go ahead and refute all of it with nonsense, I'm waiting eagerly to read your response.

OK, so I went to that site, and the first, most prominent thing is a big graph:

I've seen many such graphs, showing dramatic upticks in some quantity or other, and

When I drill further into the data, following my nose as you will, the NOAA links lead me to published ice core data that look like this (as one example, the first one I checked):

which comes from here:

Yalcin, K., et al. 2007.

Eclipse Icefield Volcanic Aerosol Reconstruction.

IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

Data Contribution Series # 2007-040.

NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

and is linked from the NOAA site.

We're looking at different timescales in the two images, and different indicators (SO4 instead of CO2 - I can't find CO2 data, would be pleased to look at it), but there's no evident sharp rise at 1950 (or in recent decades) to suggest significant changes.

I don't have any illusions I've proven anything (nor am I trying to), but so far, the first few things I've poked have given way.

I use more paper towels than I need, just because of this thread.

rose colored glasses? wrote:

We're looking at different timescales in the two images, and different indicators (SO4 instead of CO2 - I can't find CO2 data, would be pleased to look at it), but there's no evident sharp rise at 1950 (or in recent decades) to suggest significant changes.

The sulphate loading record from ice cores is used as a marker of volcanic events. The significance is that volcanic events are a natural driver to short term climate variation. Thus one would expect volcanic events to be correlated with variations in other climatic parameters in the indirect measurement (e.g. ice cores, tree rings, ...) records. Sulphate aerosols are a negative greenhouse driver.

rose colored glasses? wrote:

I don't have any illusions I've proven anything (nor am I trying to), but so far, the first few things I've poked have given way.

Judging by the timing of the posts, you looked at this for about twenty minutes. Is it possible you haven't spent enough time learning about what you're reading?

The reason I'm getting snippy is because I typed in "global warming evidence" into Google and that was one of the first things that came up. You said yourself that you've seen the graph before, so you've clearly done the research but are still challenging us to present you with evidence.I'm not sure what your reason is for bringing up sulfate concentrations, but I typed "atmospheric CO2 concentrations" into Google, and this was the first web result: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/Again, I may just be thick or not seeing the obvious, but can you clarify your point about the sulfate?Thanks.

I goggled "are humans responsible for global warming"?

It said, it is true because Al Gore says so.

No Way wrote:I typed "atmospheric CO2 concentrations" into Google, and this was the first web result:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

OK thank you, I can find measurements going back to 1982.

They state that the station with the longest records is Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Here are the available measurements (annual average values):

Can you really infer the same dramatic upswing in the first big blue graph from these data, which represent (I believe) the best, longest continuous record?

Now about the atmospheric CO2 for the several hundred thousand years preceding, in the big blue graph... where do those numbers come from?

My apologies, in my "quest for truth" I graphed too soon... :-)

Ignore that plot, it's not what I thought it was. The ppm/yr represent their estimate of annual INCREASE, not absolute mean value.

Still, irrespective of my blunder just now, I would like to better understand how CO2 levels were "measured" before the period of relatively accurate record, thanks. I dn't see that there, and couldn't find it earlier when I went sifting through ice core data.

rose colored glasses? wrote:

Still, irrespective of my blunder just now, I would like to better understand how CO2 levels were "measured" before the period of relatively accurate record, thanks. I dn't see that there, and couldn't find it earlier when I went sifting through ice core data.

Is Google really that hard to use?

They use ice cores.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif

Takes from here

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

Note that in the first graph in the article, as you move right along the x axis you're moving into the past.

Are you looking for the actual technique used and why it works?

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.full.pdf

Thanks, although the snarkiness is really not necessary. I'll give it a read

Great thanks, now we're getting somewhere!

rose colored glasses? wrote:

Thanks, although the snarkiness is really not necessary. I'll give it a read

Sorry for the snarkiness, it is just frustrating when someone doesn't believe what you're saying without even researching the issue.

You'll notice that you've had several posters provide helpful scientific evidence to support the case for global warming, while all the deniers do is make fun of NASA or make fun of Al Gore.

It is akin to trying to debate with someone whose best retort is "Yeah? Well you're ugly and your mom is fat."

rose colored glasses? wrote:

Great thanks, now we're getting somewhere!

If you are really intent on getting somewhere, you'd do better to start with a complete self-contained summary with references to more detailed data and explainations. Again, I'd recommend this if you're willing to spend a few hours on the subject:

No Way wrote:(1) it is just frustrating when someone doesn't believe what you're saying without even researching the issue.

(2) You'll notice that you've had several posters provide helpful scientific evidence to support the case for global warming,

(3) all the deniers do is make fun of NASA or make fun of Al Gore.

(1) You had provided no case other than "this is generally accepted by climate scientists to be true" or the like. No point being frustrated that someone won't quickly cave in to your point of view without pushing back. Life' too short to get frustrated about what other people choose to believe. (As an aside, I think that in itself is an interesting related topic of discussion, what compells people to get emotionally attached to supposedly science-based opinions...)

(2) I disagree, so far I've seen very little of what I would consider defensible peer-reviewed science. Just a lot of out of context snippets with no clear link back to the science.

(3) Well, I'm not a denier, I'm more like ambivalent, but skeptical of both camps' strongly held (and emotionally pitched) views.

I will read through these papers and mull some more.