Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory
The picture posted to the right shows two images: Greenland on July 8 and Greenland four days later. Satellite imagery found that 97% the land mass experienced an unprecedented thaw that seemed literally impossible.
A NASA published a statement yesterday, quoting Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who was analyzing radar data last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting. Nghiem said, "This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?"
It now appears this was not an error at all. The NASA piece added, "This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland."
Lora Koenig, a NASA glaciologist who helped analyze the satellite data, said, "If we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
I'll go out on a limb and say it's already worrisome.
Don't worry, though, Republican policymakers have a plan: they'll bury their heads in the sand and pretend the climate science is either non-existent or part of a communist plot.
Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) predicted this week his party is bound to wake up one of these days, and will have no choice but to address the crisis eventually. "You can hold back the facts only for so long and eventually they overwhelm you," he said.
I wish I shared his optimism, but looking at the above image, and watching Republicans continue to insist there is no problem, I'm afraid facts are losing.
Leave a Comment:
And now I am really worried. Yesterday I bought an office building in Palm Beach.
Scientists hired by David Koch have stated the planet is warming up.
NASA and NOAA say that the planet is warming up.
The consensus is that global warming will cause Arctic ice to melt within about 40 years.
Republicans don't have their head buried in the sand.
They are lying.
One of the reasons that I don't think the so-called deniers care is that when the actual effects of AGW present themselves as an unchangeable threat to the planet, they will be long gone.
I just want to ask those who continue to say that climate change is not happening, what if they are wrong? They may not believe that they are, but I would posit to them that if they are wrong, they are condemning the human race to extinction. I wonder if they would continue to speak against the effects of global climate change if this was put forward to them every time they argue that it isn't happening?
IN 1980 ..... Skin Cancer went up 300% in Australia , because the sun hits you not on your head but straight on from your toes to your head , And they are close to Anartica . One Hugh piece of Anartica broke off , approx. size 5mi. x 25 miles , it floated over to the cape of Africa , got into the shipping lanes and caused trouble for years till it melted away .
Aurizem @ 1.1, I'm afraid they may be in for a bit of surprise.
"...when the actual effects of AGW present themselves as an unchangeable threat to the planet..." may be sooner than they think. This is happening a LOT faster than originally projected. I have gone on record as predicting that climate change denial will be a quaint artifact of the political past within 2-5 years. It may be replaced by slack-jawed speechlessness.
Yeah, this is happening much faster than the climate scientists initially predicted. I imagine we're getting ready to see some serious feedback effects very, very soon. Who paying attention would be surprised to see the Arctic completely unfrozen in 5 - 10 years?
You are looking at it from the wrong (Democrat/climate change) perspective. It has gone from GREEN(land) to RED (Republican).
Well then NOW its a better place to live!
Down with the welfare state Communists.
Another thing.. You global warmers are not smart.
The sun warms the galaxy fools. And were currently at an 11yr solar cycle peak. duh!
Axtell--Poe's law.
the galaxy? for real?
teh stupid is strong with this one.
Axtell, you should learn something about cosmology before you go making absurd statements like "The sun warms the galaxy...". Unless, of course, you enjoy embarrassing yourself in public. If that is the case, do, please, continue to post comments along the same lines.
"The sun warms the galaxy..." Really? Forgive me if I don't take my science advice from you.
Axtell, if solar cycles, which are on an 11 year cycle, were responsible for climate change, we would be going through 11 year climate change cycles. We aren't. Every decade for the last forty years has been warmer than the previous one. The magic cycles in climate change that deniers are so enamored of are on the order of 100's of thousands to millions of years.
And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for saying galaxy when you meant solar system.
Perhaps we can move Axtell, shooter242, and the rest of the trolls there once it melts?
The sun warms the galaxy.
/facepalm.
The sun doesn't even warm Uranus...
Don't hand us your feces and tell us it doesn't stink.
"The sun warms the galaxy?"
From the Bachmann-Palin Cognitive Finishing School?
You betcha'.
DAY-39053299: You're either being sarcastic or you're an idiot. Either way, we, meaning the entire planet, are in trouble. This is a serious thing, not funny, and very frightening. Have you ever wondered what would happen if this were to happen to the polar ice cap? New York would be under water. And that's just the beginning.
Read it carefully, people. This is not a total melt. This is a surface melt. Just the surface ice melted. Not enough to swamp NYC.
Sorry, that belonged in the next thread.
Actually this shows all the hysteria over global warming is absurd. This happened two weeks ago. Any coastal cities underwater? No.
Why do Republicans reject science on Global Warming and Evolution?
The fact that you think it would take ocean currents just two-weeks to redistribute millions of gallons of water is the reason I'm scared.
My Dog! Your ignorance is astounding.
Dominic Benchilo, i know right. I mean when i pour a glass of water on the ground it covers the whole area in like, 10 seconds. Why does millions of gallons of water not cover the earth in a few seconds!
Think Sunami, how long did that wave take?
Its all very simple why the Republicans insist that Global Warming is not real and will not pass any bills to try to work with the problem , # 1 .... It may cost billionaires money to fix their manufacturing plant to stop polluting the world .
# 2... They claim its an Al Gore conspiracy , he won an award for the film he helped make and starred in , using Scientist all over the world and their research , the T-PUBS Say he paid those Scientist to falsify their findings on Global Warming .
Shooter... ever heard of the Maldives? They might have an issue with your reasoning.
The Republicans have established a Beach Head on Global Warming in the 70's ,and they don't intend to be apologizing anytime soon .
They will never back down ....... They signed a pack or pledge .
Your posting is absurd.
"Actually this shows all the hysteria over global warming is absurd. This happened two weeks ago. Any coastal cities underwater? No."
Hahahahahahahahahahaha....
I don't think it can get dumber than this. If the ice sheets in Greenland melt, the sea rise will be about 20 feet. That's a disaster. If they melt on Antarctica melt, we're talking 200 feet of sea rise. That's a mega-disaster.
"If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?"
Quick Facts on Ice Sheets A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Ah, the granite-skulled Shooter is demonstrating once again that no facts will ever lodge themselves in that solid rock atop his shoulders.
It's almost impossible to believe that a clueless asswipe like our little Walter Mitty thinks he's got the goods to call balls and strikes on climate science. The dude barely made it out of school with an undergraduate degree in economics and he doesn't even know that. What makes this idiot think he can debunk the entire climate science community and the worlds national and international academies of science. If that isn't enough to make you laugh, I don't know what is. But these idiots read them some Ayn Rand and all of a sudden they think they can perform heart surgery, solve the world's most difficult mathematics problems, etc., with some John Galt political thinking. I'm for these tools to just go Galt on us the rest of us and take their brilliant contributions away so we don't have the benefits of their production.
Fu king idiots.
Read it carefully, people. This is a surface melt only, not a total melt. Only the surface ice melted, not enough to swamp NYC, not even enough to swamp Buford Pass, Oregon.
That's undersood, James, but some of the troll deniers are using their misreading of the picture -- actually they have failed to read the legend on the graphic -- as some sort of evidence that there is an attempt to mislead. There is no attempt to mislead with this graphic, or with the article. In fact, in my opinion it's a little too cautious with the language given that the predictions from models have low-balled the actual melt. When you read my first link above, you get graphics of a continual decline in ice melt the world over on ice sheets, sea ice, and glaciers. There can only be one reason for that. And yet, the deniers still deny.
Neither the picture nor the article was misleading, but I'm sorry to say the presentation of the chart on the Rachel Maddow Show was misleading.
If I hadn't already read the article elsewhere, I would have thought they were saying that most of the Greenland ice cap had melted in four days.
I don't think there was any intentional deception, but I do think an on-the-air clarification is called for. The data is bad enough without exaggerating it (deliberately or otherwise).
More information here.
Some denier is going to misrepresent the image as saying that all the ice has melted from Greenland. Either it will be a deliberate misrepresentation or it is just that deniers are clueless and unable to understand in general (which is why they are deniers in the first place).
And before I posted, sure enough, our resident denier proved me right.
What the image actually shows is that on the surface, there is melting even though there is still snow and ice. The resultant liquid water is then running into the ocean, hence the swollen river seen in the linked article. As the article said, this shouldn't happen at this time of year. If it happens, it will normally happen much later in the summer.
Oh hey, no problemo! When the flooding comes we'll have our AR-15s and thousands of rounds of ammo! Thank goodness for Congress and the 2nd amendment, our representatives are not working on the problem right now!
Please read the ENTIRE original article that CLEARLY states from the climatologist HERSELF that core samples shows this happens EVERY 150 years and this event is right on time and totally to be expected. This article has more than any other highlighted for me the blatant abuse of information by the press and bloggers to fit their agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself and don't assume you will get away with your spin.
Shhhhhh....don't let facts get in the way of a good agenda or argument. Also, we are having record heat, but the record is from the 1800's, what was going on then to raise the heat? All those cowboys driving SUV's and cutting the grass before 6 PM I'm betting.
The deniers don't care what the science says. Melting ice, cyclical or not, natural or not, is proof that human activity is destroying the planet.
Please correct me if I am wrong but wasnt there a volcanic event that coincided with the rise in world temperature 150 years ago?
Hey Eric? The Industrial Revolution was happening in the 1800s. It was, as they say, kind of a big deal.
Cowboys. What a maroon!
Why don't you read the entire article? It said that "Ice cores from Greenland's highest region do reveal that such island-wide thaws have happened every 150 years or so, at least over the last few thousand years, but the fear now is that it might occur much more frequently due to warming sea and air temperatures." (Bold italics mine for emphasis.)
Ah yes. Because there has been absolutely no other evidence that something is not going well. No other evidence at all...
"Happily for the busy lunatics who rule over us, we are permanently the United States of Amnesia. We learn nothing because we remember nothing." - Gore Vidal
@Alan, the quote seems to be yours also. I do not see that in the article.
Edit: ah, I found it. In the NBCNEWS article, not the NASA article.
Look, I'm no denier, but people are taking this graphic and running with it. Because LOOK AT ALL THAT RED!! THAT MEANS HOT!! What the original NASA article actually says is that this is normal but needs to be watched. It is not irrefutable evidence of manmade warming, according to those deniers at NASA
Surprise surprise, Alan made up his own quote, just like his bosses make up their own facts. Good boy, Alan, it only took 30 seconds to prove you the lying moron you are.
From the clown, Kevenmc: "Please read the ENTIRE original article that CLEARLY states from the climatologist HERSELF that core samples shows this happens EVERY 150 years and this event is right on time and totally to be expected. This article has more than any other highlighted for me the blatant abuse of information by the press and bloggers to fit their agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself and don't assume you will get away with your spin."
Hoo boy! The only question at this point is which wingnut is stupidest. Once again, for the edification of our troll population:
The ice mass melting around the world is accelerating. Make sure you read these and especially take note of the graphs in the first link:
A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Myth: Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Ok, someone was talking about volcanoes correlating with a warming trend. Actuually, nope. Volcanic eruptions cause a temporary cooling because of aerosols emitted into the air.
@DWIA, you're changing the subject. We're talking about this Greenland melt and what it indicates. This is a scientist at Goddard saying Greenland melts like this every 150 years and this is actually expected. Goddard would be the LAST place to spin things to dispute climate change. It needs to be watched but is not an immediate concern.
Fearmongering like what is being done with this graph only serves to make people skeptical of other data, data that truly is concerning.
Sorry, pal. I changed no subject. On a more general level of global warming and world ice melt, get you to these and educate yourself to the growing and accelerating ice mass loss across the world. They will further alert you to the fact this latest incident in Greenland is not to be isolated from man-caused global warming. That's what this is about. Not some people's inability to interpret things that they ought to be able to.
(Make sure you read these and especially take note of the graphs in the first link)
A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Myth: Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
You can keep quoting that line from the NBC reporter all you want. He's not a scientist. The fact is, the NASA article from which THIS GRAPHIC comes, quotes Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist, as saying melts like this happen in Greenland every 150 years on average and this is "right on time". It's something to watch, but not entirely surprising.
Lest you think this is some fringe nutbag scientist, she works at Goddard, which run by James Hansen. Not exactly denier material there.
Yep. Alan and Bobo are right, guys. Anthropogenic global warming is the most devastating thing to visit our planet in milennia. My-sideism is not likely to be of great help.
What this also shows is that half truths are the norm here. Did all the ice on Greenland melt, as implied? No. Does the surface ice usually melt in summer? Yes.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/blink-its-gone-greenlands-surface-ice-melted-2-weeks-ago/17908
I hate to admit it, but Shooter has a point. The graphic is misleading. But writing about the reality of global warming in a way proportionate to its importance is very difficult to do
.
No, our Walter Mitty moron has absolutely no point. They're not going to melt all at the same time. The ice mass melting around the world is accelerating. Make sure you read these and especially take note of the graphs in the first link:
A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Myth: Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Oh, I agree on the science, Disgusted. I'm talking about the graphic--whether intended or not, it's sensationalized and easily misreadable, especially by those, like Shooter, who clearly don't have the foggiest notion about what climate science says. That's lots of people, not all of them denialists.
Did production stop? Why didn't we get hotter and hotter? Why are we only now breaking records from back then? We had more factories back then? Jeez, anything to fit a f'ing agenda.
Idiot. (see, I can name call too)
Unbelievable stupidity from Eric. It takes time for the carbon omissions to build up CO2 in the atmosphere. The greatest CO2 build up has occurred in the last 40 years and continues to increase NOW. Right now, it approx. 30,000,000,000 tons of CO2 per year which absolutely swamps what was done in the 1800's. Good grief.
Idiot.
Ok, dummy why was it just as hot in 1800's?
What did we do to cause the "build up" back then? How dizzy are you getting from spinning this?
It wasn't.
Shooter
If all the ice melted off of Greenland in 4 days we wouldn't notice because most of us would be dead already. Those who weren't would be worrying about how they were going to survive.
The Greenland ice sheet is very, very thick, so thick that it has pushed the surface below sea level. It will take decades or centuries for all of it to melt. What this means is the surface has melted. It will re-freeze in the fall.
Not if it runs into the ocean, it won't. And that is exactly what has been happening.
"We can't lose sight of the fact that Greenland's ice sheet is losing 150 gigatons of ice a year,"
Uh, hey, maybe the camera's broke.
Okay, so with this fact stated. Why is this such a disaster? Okay it's warmer. Let's say we can upset the world economy and make things colder. What could possibly happen? We could have significant crop failures due to unseasonably cold and/or wet weather (similar to what's happening now with hot weather). Weather people still wont be able to tell me if it's going to rain 3 days from now. So can someone please explain why this is such a disaster?
Hey, that is a fair question since the general public isn't given much information beyond the immediate is it or isn't it debate.
My suggestion is www.edf.org. It's an easy website to use, talks about the facts and myths of climate change and will give you an idea of the collateral damage increased temperatures can cause, things like blossoming too early before the bees come out of hybernation, or warming waters that can move marine spawning times out of sync.
The more education on the topic, the more brain power to provide solutions.
Mighty Romney and the Super Pac team will fix it! He'll fix everything, dontcha know. We'll all be saved when Mitt takes the White House! Mitt told us so.
//snark off//
How do you feel about how Obama has saved our nation like he promised 4 years ago. Hahahahahaahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel very good about it, thank you. Here is why. Please feel free not to go to this site and to continue ignoring everything the man has done, so you can march on with your willfully uneducated opinion.
Have a super pac day, Rob.
What an idiot.
Or...you can explain how a non entity can cause climate change.
While you're at it. Please explain how man caused the greatest climate changes of the past. Let's see...industrial pollution in 3,000,000 BC?
Idiot.
Agree. This article is totally irresponsible. Research is that thing you do instead of just making @!$%# up.
Your the idiot, what does it matter if it was natural or Man made? It's still a problem and we know carbon is the culprit, so we know how to mitigate our risk. So we stop using fossil fuels. We have the technology, what's the problem?
This article is complete speculation. Ice cores clearly show this is a normal cycle. Just because we see something new does not make it a new. I am a proponent of climate change but let's let the facts be facts and not invent information to get a bunch of excitable idiots (you) all riled up.
New Rule: From now on anyone who uses the term "natural cycle" will be permanently banned from making any comment on science forever. Someone who knows what they're talking about realizes that cycles don't just happen. For every effect there is a cause. The seasons change because of the angle of the earth as it goes around the sun due to gravity. Your furnace and air conditioner cut on and off because your thermostat measures the temperature and issues the appropriate messages.
To say that climate change follows a natural cycle means you don't know what you are talking about because it doesn't follow a cycle at all. There are climate changes when something happens like a massive meteor strike, massive volcano eruptions, changes in ocean currents from salinity changes which happen when massive amounts of fresh water are released. These changes aren't on a cycle. Each one has its own cause unrelated to the previous change. There is no doubt in any rational, educated person's mind that our present change is caused by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
exactly, outtatime- why poop where we eat?
Man didn't cause the climate changes of the past. He's causing this one though.
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Morons.
Danald the the others are just demonstrating they know how to take orders and can memorize talking points, just like the good Homo Saps they are. They really are a separate species, definitely lacking frontal lobes, which explains their low foreheads.
@Danald. Research??? Research is what REAL scientists(not the corrupted hired by the likes of the Koch brothers) have been doing for decades. They have been telling us things like this are going to happen and they are. So what will stop your denial? Nothing is my guess.
@dkm, from the NASA article:
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
That's a Goddard scientist, for crying out loud. Home of James Hansen. That's STILL not good enough for you? Who's ignoring the science here?
Sorry, bobo the Clown, you simply haven't read the article. Just as Alan Eggleston said above, "Ice cores from Greenland's highest region do reveal that such island-wide thaws have happened every 150 years or so, at least over the last few thousand years, but the fear now is that it might occur much more frequently due to warming sea and air temperatures."
Now, get you to these and educate yourself to the growing and accelerating ice mass loss across the world:
(Make sure you read these and especially take note of the graphs in the first link)
A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Myth: Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Yes, DWIA, I did read the article and yes, I saw that quote from Miguel Llanos of NBC News -- not a scientist. I also read the original NASA article, also linked above. I suggest you read it as well.
I have never denied the warming data. This chart is not warming data, so say the scientists at NASA and Goddard.
By the way, are you capable of having a grownup discussion without resorting to name calling? I want to know before I waste any more time trying to engage you.
Sorry, bobo. My apologies. Having a difficult wingnut day. My bad. Everything is looking like denial before I stop to think. So again, my apologies.
Accepted, thanks. I'm not a wingnut or a denier. The record temps and drought have me very nervous. But I have to call BS when I see it, whether it supports my views or opposes them. And a little bad science goes a long way toward damaging real science.
I find it interesting how msnbc decided to edit this story. All the science blogs I subscribe to reported that the last time this happened in Greenland was 150 years ago and that this can't be necessarily tied to climate change. But, of course msnbc wasn't willing to report the truth as they want to sensationalize and sell their beliefs.
Except that this particular melt is connected to a series of unseasonal warm fronts that have appeared over Greenland. These warm fronts are just one of many other unusual weather conditions that are related to increasing warmth. To claim that we should ignore global warming because proof can't meet legal standards is just not realistic.
Looks like GivanniG could stand to educate himself with a little climate science instead of listening to the good-hairs at Fox who know nothing.
The ice mass melting around the world is accelerating. Make sure you read these and especially take note of the graphs in the first link:
A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Myth: Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
One question is whether this unusually large amount of melt water will flow down beneath the glaciers and lubricate their slide into the sea. This is already happening, but may be accelerated.
Also, the recent loss (calving) of large volumes of Greenland's shoulder sea ice is removing the "Flying Buttresses" that holds these glaciers in place.
Is this a mechanism that could accelerate Greenland's ice loss materially?
Global warming. Wealth disparity. Healthcare crisis. Economic inequality. Marriage inequality. Racial inequality. Corporate welfare. Gun violence epidemic. Et cetera, etc, etc.
The Republican response is simply to deny the existence of the problems.
Amen, Brother!
Absolutely - the GOP just has it's head buried in the sand and blames everything on Obama...including the many crisis created by their own previous GOP President (financial meltdown, housing crisis, 800,000 per mo. job losses, huge deficits due to unpaid for and one unnecessary war and unpaid for tax cuts) and any and all ideas President Obama has AGREED with them on (which makes them suddenly turn tail and jump ship)...like mandates (wasn't that OUR idea? - doesn't matter, Obama likes it now - so now we hate it) or Cap and Trade (wasn't that also OUR idea? Yes, but shut up - The President is on board now, so we CAN'T agree - now we hate it)... etc. etc. etc. they are fools following only their vow to "make President Obama a one-term President" and not their vow to their constituents to help this country. The GOP are OBSTRUCTIONISTS TO SUCCESS - and BLIND TO SCIENCE as well.
Someone gonna blame this on Obama.
When the Republicans find a way to blame this on Obama then the rest will believe in Global Warming. So I hope they do.
Some one in NASA need to consult a glaciologist instead of a climatologist. This sort of event is not that unusual in glacier history. Glaciers are like slow moving rivers and this retreat is more likely to be the result of an event that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago that is finally reaching the snout of the glacier than any recent (last century) climate change. Glaciers react very slowly and do not react quickly to recent climate changes.
How do you define "quickly?" Glacial retreat all over the earth has been enormous in the last 50 - 100 years. Look at pictures of glaciers in the 1930's and compare them with today. That is defined as "quickly" in geologic terms.
Most of the recent science on glaciers and climate that I'm aware of (I'm certainly no expert) indicates that glaciers are much more sensitive to climate in the near term than previously thought.
Yes. The Greenland glaciers were expected to slowly melt in place. But instead they are sliding (in a way similar to ice skating, lubricated by underlying melt water) into the sea, where they melt much more quickly.
This seems to be a recurrent problem with many models. Nature is complex, and the wrong mechanism is modeled. This is also true for Arctic ice.
Brother John may not like the fact that his "facts" aren't facts, since morons like himself live in the hermetically-sealed reality of WingnutWhacko World, but for the rest of us:
The Myth of "natural" Arctic Ice-Melt: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm
Poor Johne. Comes a troll-ing to show those dumb liberals a thing or two and ends up exposing his stupidity. Sorry, johnny, glaciologists are on board with climate science. Everybody is save those faith-based, ideological wingnut morons like yourself that thinks science is a political fight to be won for laissez faire capitalism and unfettered markets so the pollutocrats can continue to steal the Earth for themselves from people today and in the future. For your edification, here's some information that, if you absorb it, keep you from making the idiot of yourself that you did today:
The ice mass melting around the world is accelerating. Make sure you read these and especially take note of the graphs in the first link:
A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Myth: Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Only a bone head would think there is no global warming.......man made or natural. So much wrong in America these days I am glad not to be of this earth much longer!
...mom, is that you?
Hey, Ms. Maddow, it's interesting that you completely left out the part about this occurring every 150 years or so, which is mentioned in the original article. Why is that?
she didn't write it...Steve Benen did
I must commend you morons for all being able to spout the same talking point so uniformly. The trouble, of course, is that like all "Republican facts" this one isn't. A fact, that is.
For the rest of us: The Myth of "natural" Arctic ice melt: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm
When they spout the same talking point in unison you know they get it from the same place. As for the other dumb wingnuts that got here before him, here's some things that can help you from exposing your stupidity in the future:
The ice mass melting around the world is accelerating. Make sure you read these and especially take note of the graphs in the first link:
A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Myth: Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Obviously, NASA wasn't defunded enough, if it still has the time and money to make such frivolous observations.
This is a frivolous observation??? What would you consider to be an important one?
This was a joke, actually. The Republicans' pattern seems to be: if I don't agree with what the experts tell me, I push for the elimination of the experts' jobs through defunding the institution they're working for.
Steve Benen - have you misunderstood the facts here? It represents areas where melting is occurring and indicates nothing about the actual volume of the melt or that all of the ice and snow has melted.
If you didn't understand, then remove or clarify your post. If you did understand, then you're counting on the inability or disinclination of the reader to do a bit of critical thinking about the information presented to believe an implied point that's not supported by a proper reading of the data.
FYI - I'm a huge fan of the show, and when I see things like this it's very disappointing.
As the article itself clearly states, this kind of melting hasn't happened since satellite records have been kept. Furthermore, the article says that the amount of ice that is melting and running off is in the gigatons.
I think maybe you should read the article again because your complaints are clearly addressed.
It's clear from the comments of others here (and I think it should have been anticipated by the author) that many are interpreting this as meaning that ALL of the ice/snow cover in the indicated areas has melted. THAT'S what I am saying should have been clearly pointed out.
Second paragraph, first sentence, complete w/typo:
My emphasis. Your reading comprehension is sub-par.
I see, so it would make more sense to you that we didn't have a NASA to report observations. What's the difference, Revelations says the worlds going to end soon anyway, right?
We will be underwater and boiling before deniers admit it's climate change, and hope of them ever admitting the VERY SIMPLE science that human activity is to blame is about on par with hoping that I'll have a space ship built and another habitable planet to live on (and that I could reach in a reasonable number of years) before I'm dead.
Help me et this straight. Do you build an Ark before a flood or after.
This whole global warming thing is just another plot by gay astronauts and socialist Presidents to convince the rich and Republican to fund things like solar energy and health care. When the seas rise and swallow up those who can't afford to move because they're still waiting for money to trickle down from up on high, like some sort of celestial whizz, we won't have so many people to worry about! Bring your swim trunks!!!
#globalpoolparty4ever