LiveScience | Andrea Thompson | Dec. 13, 2007
Global warming may not be the only thing melting Greenland. Scientists have found at least one natural magma hotspot under the Arctic island that could be pitching in.
In recent years, Greenland’s ice has been melting more and flowing faster into the sea—a record amount of ice melted from the frozen mass this summer, according to recently released data—and Earth’s rising temperatures are suspected to be the main culprit.
But clues to a new natural contribution to the melt arose when scientists discovered a thin spot in the Earth’s crust under the northeast corner of the Greenland Ice Sheet where heat from Earth’s insides could seep through, scientists will report here this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
“The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,” said lead scientist Ralph von Frese of Ohio State University. “However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts too.”
The corner of Greenland where the hotspot was found had no known ice streams, the rivers of ice that run through the main ice sheet and out to sea, until one was discovered in 1991. What exactly caused the stream to form was uncertain.
“Ice streams have to have some reason for being there,” von Frese said, “and it’s pretty surprising to suddenly see one in the middle of the ice sheet.”
The newly discovered hotspot, an area where Earth’s crust is thinner, allowing hot magma from Earth’s mantle to come closer to the surface, is just below the ice sheet and could have caused it to form, von Frese and his team suggest.
. . . more
Greenland sits just north of Iceland, one of the most seismically active spots on the globe, so the theory is at least, plausible. However, how could magma under Greenland be responsible for ice melting throughout the entire Artic region?
The BBC reports:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
Observations:
Greenland is called Greenland because it used to be green not that long ago. Remnants of villages have been found in the ice over the years that included farms and animals.
Do we have any real idea of what is occuring? No
Do we really know, given such history as noted, whether the melting is a dire problem? No
Even if it is a dire problem is there anything we can reasonably do that won’t make matters worse in other ways? Highly unlikely.
Could simple or even complex adaptation to any problems that acutally occur be a more reasonable, less costly, more effective strategy? IMO Yes
Is the possibility of a dire problem being used by those who seek money and power to ensure they will get money and power? Absolutely
Is the opposition to the global warming crowd equally strident and counter-productive. Yes
For Christians of true worship we must keep in mind that He “has established His foundations (in the earth ) and they shall not be moved” “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”
We are commanded to dress and keep the earth, but we should do so from a sense of hope and joy as part of our salvation, not apocalyptic fear no matter which side of the political debate (and it is a political debate) we come down on.
I tend to say to both sides “A pox on both your houses” and seek the middle way that avoids extremes and is focused on God, not on my fears or my comfort.
Another observation: Why is it that those most vocal about the need to “save the earth” also tend to be pro-abortion?
Is it prehaps a from of virulent self-hatred?
Why is it that those most opposed to the actions of the global warmers often speak primarily in marco-econmics and political ideation rather than from a genuine holistic approach that includes both the spiritual and the political, the personal and the corporate?
Perhaps it is just a knee-jerk reaction: They said, it is must be wrong.
Fear and loathing do nothing to address any real problem that might exist.
Can you tell me where I may find that public opinion survey that found that “those most vocal about the need to ‘save the earth’ also tend to be pro-abortion”.
If true, that would place most environmentalists in opposition to the teachings of Christianity and suggest that they are morally impaired. I’m sure we would not want to draw such a sweeping conclusion on the basis of hearsay, prejudice or folklore. Would we?
“We have all sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, worshipping the created thing, more than the creator”
IMO “public opinion surveys” often are nothing more than systematised conglomerations of hearsay, prejudice and folklore designed to manipulate public opinion rather that to discover the truth. But that has nothing to do with my observations.
It is simply that the ‘global warming activists’ on the poltical side are almost uniformly from the “left” who have no qualms about the aborting of a single human life–public record.
Many on the “right” who oppose global warming initiatives are vociferously pro-life but frequently do not show as much specific concern for our inter-relationship with the rest of creation–public record.
The political philosophy that has the most consistent track record–being totally willing to rape nature and kill babies with equal abandon is communism.
It is a moral blindness to which we are all subject. It makes any sort of massive political solution almost impossible because we turn our moral blindness into ideology and forget the human altogether in our mad rush to “solve the problem” or “deny the problem”.
************************
The philosophical under-pinning of modern-day environmentalism is frequently anti-human, i.e., man is the problem by the fact of our existence. The natural environment would be just fine if we were to just bug-off, etc. It is a further sub-set of the mechanistic world view that has no place really for the being of man in its understanding. On the other end there are the neo-pagans who are equally unable to account for human beings because of neo-pagan earth worship. Human beings are “unnatural” somehow. The founding of the environmental movement in the 1960’s was often accompanied by specifically anti-Christian propaganda BTW. There seems to be something about our concern for the “environment” as if it were something separate from us that leads even sincere and knowledgable Christians to depart from the faith in significant ways. Philip Sherrard being one major Orthodox example.
My faith leads me to conclude that while we are called in our own lives to dress and keep the earth (which includes caring for one another), we cannot and should not expect to create paradise by our efforts, neither should we fear annihilation. There will always be struggles and difficulties, even massive ones because of our individual and collective moral and spiritual impairments. Only by orienting ourselves toward our Creator can we even begin to fulfill our responsibilities. “Seek ye first the Kingdom of heaven….”
#2 Michael to be nit picky Greenland was not named Greenland because it was green. It was named Greenland by Erik the Red to attract more settlers there.
Having written that though, it was more green when the Norse arrived than it is today, possibly because of the medieval warm period. But the Norse colonies still struggled with malnutrition because of short growing cycles in the summer. Eventually, the colony failed because of internal strife, conflicts with the Inuit, and temperature declines (little ice age) that inhibited farming.
You see a man absorbed in his own thoughts and oblivious to his surroundings wander out into the street in the path of an uncoming bus. Do you (1) Grab him by the arm and pull him back, or (2) Shrug and say “Alas, in the end we are all only truly saved by our faith.” then watch the man be struck and disappear under the wheels of bus?
You see a race of humans absorbed in their own struggle for economic survival and oblivious to the consequences of their actions on the delicate balance of nature on earth and its long-term consequences for their children. Do you (1) Attempt to change your actions in order to slow or stop the adverse changes to our this earth upon which God’s children reside, or (2) Shrug and say “Alas, in the end we are all only truly saved by our faith” then watch as large portions of this earth are made increasing inhospitable and uninhabitable for our children and grandchildren?
Did Christ say, “Alas, in the end we are all only truly saved by our faith” and leave the lame man on his pallet? Did He say “Alas, in the end we are all only truly saved by our faith” and leave the leper covered in his scabs? In the end we are only truly saved by our faith, but does that mean we have to tolerate needless misery and suffering until we get there?
Do you prevent people from crossing a street whether there is a bus there or not?
Do you artifically improvish them to build an elaborate bridge over a street down which buses do not even run?
Aletheometer. Go for it!
Its another one of those areas where rational argument will never change anyone. You tacitly acknowledge that when you choose to mock my faith. A faith which you fail to comprehend at all because of a pre-existing bias. I see nothing but tryanny, corruption and hypocrisy in the pronouncements of those who want to “save the planet” a task that we are incapable of and has already been accomplished.
I have no faith in the poltics of men to design a grand ecological program that will actually improve our current situation. I do have faith in the reality of doing things personally with the consciousness of God (to the extent I’m capable of that). I also know that every act we take effects the environment all over the globe (even if it is not measurable). The proposals of the global warming activists are like using a sledge hammer to fix a computer.
Ascesis is needed, but forced ascesis only creates black markets, transfers power to centralized institutions and kills people even when applied to relatively simple economic transactions. To me its a question of which bus runs me over, not a choice between getting run over or not.
I see nothing from the global warming activists that indicates to me they care spit about the earth, they just want to transfer money and power into their own hands.
So I’ll work on the part of the environment that I actually can and care for the people who I can see and touch that God sends to me as best I can while praying that God gives the increase. If you’d rather create massive, tryannical structures to micro-manage every choice we make, like I said Go for it.
Here’s a comprehensive study that seriously challenges the unproven theory that hydrocarbon use and CO2 levels have any significant effect on climate: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Chris, the study is all well and good, but you are just buying into the false assertion that global warming activists actually give a damn about anything but there own ideology, just as there is nothing anyone can say or do that will convice abortionists to stop aborting unless they are convicted from within, so you will not convince the GW’s. All they are looking for is a rationale to do what they want to do, strip wealth from the United States and transfer it elsewhere–setting up a bureracracy to accomplish it and to hell with anyone who gets in their way.
Michael, I am not buying into the “false assertion that global warming activists actually give a damn about anything but there own ideology” as you stated. I agree with you that many of these activists really embrace such a stance. However, there are many out there that have been lied to and many more still that have never been exposed to the truth. That’s why I post this stuff.
FYI, that latest study and chart I posted was a novelty for me also! Now imagine how hard it is for others to come across substantive evidence to refute the “man and CO2 are causing global warming” scam!
Chris B. writes: “Here’s a comprehensive study that seriously challenges the unproven theory that hydrocarbon use and CO2 levels have any significant effect on climate . . .”
Has the study been published in a peer-reviewed journal?
Jim,it wouldn’t matter to you if it had 5000 times over, despite your oft repeated reverence for “facts” you don’t give a damn if they don’t fit your pre-conceived conclusions, if you can’t come up with anything new, don’t speak.
Michael writes: “Jim,it wouldn’t matter to you if it had 5000 times over, despite your oft repeated reverence for “facts” you don’t give a damn if they don’t fit your pre-conceived conclusions, if you can’t come up with anything new, don’t speak.”
Actually, it would matter. I just wonder why it is that if someone has the “killer” article they don’t want to share that in a peer-reviewed publication.
By the way, the article comes from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Since I live in Oregon I decided to check them out. The “Institute” is basically a sheet metal building and gravel parking lot located six miles southwest of Cave Junction, Oregon, (population 1,376) and 1 mile east of Laura’s Horseshoeing, which is the nearest landmark if you want to visit them sometime. There is an attractive photo of the sheet metal building on OISM’s web page. When not engaged in global warming research, OISM specializes in publishing survivalist techniques on how to survive a nuclear war and producing home schooling materials. Does that count as “new” information?
Jim, You’ve proven the point again that “Facts to a liberal, leftist or materialist, are like Kryptonite to Superman.” Look at the facts and DOCUMENTED data meticulously provided and referenced in the report. They provide clear and convincing evidence that Human Activity and CO2 levels DO NOT CAUSE Global Warming.
Still waiting on this simple “peer-reviewed” and published experiment that shows a CAUSAL connection that shows EXACTLY how and by how much HUMAN-CREATED CO2 contributes to warming.
Causal Connection Experiment on CO2 Influence on Air Temperature
===================================================
Step 1 – Create 2 heavily insulated chambers with the same volume of air.
Step 2 – Place air in Chamber A with concentration of Carbon Dioxide of 280 parts per million at set temperature, pressure and humidity.
Step 3 – Place air in Chamber B with concentration of Carbon Dioxide of 377.5 parts per million at same set temperature, pressure and humidity as Chamber B.
Step 4 – Confirm the same starting average temperature of Chamber A and Chamber B to enough significant figures to measure change.
Step 5 – Shine the same amount of light energy for the same amount of time on both Chambers A and B.
Step 6 – Monitor and record average temperature in Chambers A and B after the same amount of time has passed.
Step 7 – Temperature Difference (if any) between Chambers A and B will represent the additional warming caused by the extra CO2 in Chamber B.
Got it now Jim? Show me the scientific experiments and papers on that and let’s see how much CO2 really contributes to the warming. I’ll be waiting…..
The burden of proof STILL rests on the AlGore and his leftists minions, NOT us! I only provided the document to help others understand the lies, falsehoods, and propaganda perpetuated by the left and radical environmentalists, members of the Global Warming Cult.
Chris B. writes: “im, You’ve proven the point again that “Facts to a liberal, leftist or materialist, are like Kryptonite to Superman.” Look at the facts and DOCUMENTED data meticulously provided and referenced in the report.”
Chris, like most people I am not a scientist, much less a climate scientist. Thus, I have no personal ability to interpret scientific reports on either side of the issue. Thus, I have to rely the opinions of actual scientists to evaluate scientific claims.
For example, another article at OISM is about “Deamidation of Peptides and Proteins.” This article states that “The predicted half-life in days of the amide in 37 °C, pH 7.4, 0.15 M Tris buffer is given by (100)(CD). The predicted half-life for the net deamidation of one amide in a protein, with all amides considered, is given by (100)(ID).”
What do you think? True, not true, or you don’t know? Like me, you probably don’t know. Maybe true, maybe not. How would we know? I feel the same way about these global warming articles, and that doesn’t mean that I flee from facts like Dracula from sunlight, or whatever the metaphor is.
With respect to specific papers or research, one thing I look at is whether the research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Of course, just because an article hasn’t been published in a peer reviewed journal doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. But it does mean that it makes it difficult for me to evaluate the claims in the article. This is especially true of articles that show up on the internet. Again, if an organization has a slam-dunk article on global warming, why not publish it in a peer reviewed journal?
I also look at the organization from which the article originates. In the case under discusion, OISM simply doesn’t impress me very much. Now maybe they have the straight scoop on global warming, but frankly, it’s a rather oddball organization, located as far from civilization in Oregon as you could get, unless they moved to the desert.
Concerning the larger issues, I look to the scientific consensus. Consensus doesn’t mean unanimity. My understanding at this point is that a majority of climate scientists come down on the side of the issue that AGW is a serious and significant factor. If that consensus changes, then my views will change. I don’t have an emotional attachment to either side of the issue.
Chris B.: “Got it now Jim?”
The problem is that your little experiment doesn’t portray the mechanism of global warming as claimed by the scientists on the other side of the issue.
Jim, My experiment would actually prove “causation” and that’s what still missing from this entire debate. It follows established scientific thinking and reasoned experimentation that proves in the lab in the micro and then logically extrapolates into the macro world. We have never had such a reasoned, logical, and scientific experiment to prove to us that CO2 created by man causes any warming. Until that happens the burden of proof shall remains unmet. We’re still waiting….
FYI, One does not have to be a scientist to understand how (a) simple experiments work, (b) actual causation works, and (c) how reasoned inference works.
Jim, Here’s a peer-reviewed study that says the same thing as the information I posted:
Global warming not man-made phenomenon
12-Aug-2003
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-08/huoj-gwn081203.php
Hebrew University, Canadian scientists cite data from study
Here’s another Peer-Reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.
You wanted “serious” climatologists to comment on anthropogenic climate change, and there you have them, peer reviewed and all.
Now the “climahysterics” (worldwide members of the Global Warming Cult) can cite their IPCC reports with their deep scientific conclusions like “most likely caused by”, “likely”, and “very likely” studies. Immediately followed by massive personal attacks of all messengers and scientists with claims that they are all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and being paid by Big Oil or Giant Coal, or at one time visited or worked for a private energy company, or voted for Reagan, or watched FoxNews and are therefore disqualified.
There needs to be a clarification of a common mistake that seems to run through some thinking on environmental posts.
Consensus is not science.
Nor is science truth. It is a test. It is by definition limited by and subject to the tester’s perceptions and biases and the limitations of the methods of testing used.
For some to insist that scientific consensus proves a truth is a nonsensical statement. It’s like arguing that there are pink unicorns because a consensus of people believe in Pink Unicorns.
#16 Chris –
Jim is right about your experiment. It would not be conclusive regarding the claimed mechanism of anthropogenic warming. The claim is that the small degree of warming experienced in the chamber – a test that was first done about 100 years ago – is amplified by secondary effects that eventually produce the warming. The problem is that no one has actually demonstrated any of the secondary effects, they are inferred from massive computer models that are “tuned” to produce past climate data.
#17 Jim
Art Robinson is a very smart guy who doesn’t give a rip what people think of him. Hence the metal shed in Oregon. He was a protege and colleague of Linus Pauling. Willie Soon is a Harvard astrophysicist of high repute. They published this paper in an obscure medical journal in order to avoid the IPCC gang.
You should strive to make your criticisms ad rem rather than ad hominem.
A salient point of this debate is that “Climate Science” as Richard Lindzen of MIT points out, didn’t really exist as a discipline 20 years ago. It used to be that people studied metereology. “Climate science” was a fabricated discipline that owes its life almost entirely to global warming and the UN group, and is almost self-defined as being “one who believes in AGW”. So, it’s actually not true that “climate scientists” are the best authority on all the subsidiary issues that arise. Art Robinson has probably more expertise relevant to atmospheric chemistry than most “climate scientists”. Willie Soon probably has more experience related to the effect of the sun on climate.
JBL writes: “For some to insist that scientific consensus proves a truth is a nonsensical statement.”
I sent an earlier reply to you that apparently died in the spam filter. Apologies in advance if the previous post suddenly shows up.
I agree that a scientific consensus does not prove anything, that in fact it may even prove in time to be wrong. But a scientific consensus does provide a justification for belief. For example, if the scientific consensus is that smoking is harmful, then I would be justified in believing that smoking is harmful — i.e., my belief that smoking is harmful would be neither unwarranted nor irrational.
As I understand it, the consensus position on global warming is that a) it is a real phenomenon, and b) it is likely that human activity is a significant factor in global warming. “Likely” as I understand it would equate to perhaps a 90 percent probability.
In many discussions about global warming, the term “likely” is often not mentioned. But the scientific belief in human-caused global warming is not an absolute or certain belief — it is a probabilistic belief. “Likely” is a much more modest claim that “certain.”
As I understand it, almost all the major relevant scientific organizations in the U.S. agree with the consensus position. I believe there are two major organizations that have taken a noncommittal position, and that no major organization has taken an actively contrary position.
If my understanding of the scientific consensus is correct, then I believe that my belief in human-caused global warming is neither unwarranted or irrational. That doesn’t mean that I have “proved” anything. If you see a flaw in my reasoning, please point that out to me.
But please note that my belief is not based on Al Gore’s presentation. It is not based on a single “slam-dunk” article. It is not based on any “guru” or “prophet.”
Tom C writes: “You should strive to make your criticisms ad rem rather than ad hominem.”
Point taken. I aspire to that, but as an almost-lifelong Oregon resident and former rural “hippie,” I have a natural skepticism about monumental pronouncements that come from sheet metal buildings located fifty miles from nowhere. Been there, done that, got the tshirt. You know science. I know Oregonians. We’re an odd lot, myself excluded :^).
Tom C: “He [Robinson] was a protege and colleague of Linus Pauling.”
Pauling was a great scientist, a pillar, really. Then came vitamin C. To his credit Robinson broke with him at that point. But — Robinson has his own problems. Look, I’m just saying that if you want to talk about global warming, quoting from OISM is probably not the strongest argument.