>Olsen had the difficult task of retrieving measuring devices that had been planted on the ice for the Blue Action mission. But when he set out with his dog sled, he found that the ice sheet was hidden beneath a shallow lake of water.
>Figures from the National Snow & Ice Data Center show that approximately 712,000 km2 of Greenland’s surface has melted on June 12th, more than 470,000 km2 more than the same date in 2018. This was also more than 600,000km2 more than the median average from 1981 to 2010. Over 40% of Greenland experienced melting on that one day alone, with total ice loss estimated to be more than 2 gigatons (equal to 2 billion tons).
>In 2012, Greenland experienced the most melting on record, when, for a few days, 97% of the entire ice sheet indicated surface melting. Those monitoring the ice sheet say 2019 could rival this figure.
>"CO2 lags temperature" >can't read his own chart >the absolute state of denialfags From your own chart you can see CO2 lags temperature during periods when both decline BUT it comes before temperature during periods when both increase. Which makes perfect sense from all our understanding of climatology.
This is where we are now btw. Denialfags think this won't have consecuences.
Why would the earth cool down again, after CO2 increase. Shouldn't more CO2 contribute to a higher temperature?
> you can see CO2 comes before temperature during periods when both increase
I don't see that in your chart.
Ethan Young
Its the 14 russian twin reactor icebreakers crushing ice and dumping hot water
Dylan Brooks
You know, it's pathetic how these faggots always post the same images every single time.
Almost every single image climate deniers post is easily debunked with a minimal amount of research. Next you will be posting the stupid image from some Russian shitposter that doesn't understand paleoclimatology.
Henry Ortiz
If climate change really is as big a problem as libtards are making it to be, why aren't we talking about the genocide of the lower class who contribute the bulk of carbon waste? You guys love using The Mongols' massacring across the world as an example of solid & fast solution, so why not bring it back. Or could it be you're really all just shallow cowards who only spout nonsense about the environment to make yourselves feel better?
There are many factors that influence temperature on a scale of thousands of years, among them greenhouse gases, but also Milankovitch Cycles (small, periodic changes in the Earth's orbit that change the amount of solar radiation received) and effects from vulcanism or albedo (as ice cover increases, more heat is reflected off the surface of the Earth).
Humanity is fucking up with natural, periodic changes in the Earth's temperature, atmosphere and climate.
You know that CO2 is not the only factor that influences climate, right?
In regards to the "CO2 lags temperature" argument, if you can even call it that, you need to have an understanding of Milankovitch cycles in order to understand it. Past interglacials and glacial periods of the current ice age are mostly influenced by milankovitch cycles, rather than carbon dioxide. Basically, CO2 is not the reason that Earth moved from a glacial phase to an interglacial phase, rather it's changes in the Earth's orbit, distance from the sun, tilt of its axis, etc. that have predominately influenced it.
It's far from ok, and you need to have a better understanding of what you're looking at. There's likely going to still be ice forming in the arctic even a hundred years from now, but there is less and less each year, and the arctic decline in sea ice is pretty staggering, especially when you look at multi-year, thick sea ice which is almost entirely gone, and what is left is seasonal thin sea ice. If you would ask any scientist currently doing research in the arctic, they would tell you that what is happening is very alarming and there is a severe reduction in sea ice. Do you see how there is virtually zero sea ice in Western Greenland? Some of the largest glaciers on Earth are located there, and they drain directly into the ocean. When you remove sea ice from that region, it allows those glaciers to rapidly retreat, in addition to this, it allows easier access of greenland meltwater into the oceans from the Greenland ice sheet.
It's pretty much inevitable that within the next century, even as soon as the next few decades, that there will be ice-free arctic summers, and all of that leads to positive feedbacks that warm the oceans and lead to vast weather and climate changes to the northern hemisphere, such as the polar vortex, or north atlantic oscillation.
Globalism through trade and corporate law is too blame
Andrew Wright
>how do we know> because greenhouses get hot in the sun without ventilation.
Michael White
>no no it summer the ice is melting
Owen Gray
You think the greenhouse gets hot because of CO2?
Zachary Walker
Reminder, global warming threads go in with flat earth, anti-vaxxers, and 5g conspiracists.
Matthew Davis
Shouldn't you be watching your country get creamed by Paragay right now?
Grayson Howard
Seriously, if this bullshit is the best the climate hoaxers can come up with, this whole thing stinks to heaven.
Cooper Brown
Average sea level is the same. Who gives a shit about an isolated area that had a hot summer for 2 years? The fact is, if global warming was real, sea levels would rise. Everyone on the coast knows this hasn't happened. Suck a dick.
Owen Reyes
You're thinking over geological timescales. If you look at all previous interglacial to glacial, or glacial to interglacial cycles in the current ice age, there is nothing even close to the changes happening in the arctic now, on such incredibly small timescales. It's almost happening instantaneously on a geological timescale. It's hard to understand it when you're looking from a human perspective, we barely live a century and on a geological timescale, a century is quite insignificant in terms of climate change. What is happening to the Earth's climate system right now is incredibly rapid, and the rate of sea ice decrease is pretty unprecedented.
By the way, there's not much data on sea ice from previous centuries, and you cannot really infer the state of sea ice from ice cores, because they are taken from ice sheets, not sea ice, so your argument that sea ice has been shrinking for 20k years doesn't really have any evidence to support it. In fact, the only real data we have to study sea ice extent comes from satellite data, which really didn't begin until the early 1980s. Before that, almost all sea ice data was from some ship records, which aren't exactly reliable data.
>Why should I care the earth has been much hotter and colder with humans around. Because it's never happened this fast, on this scale before, and CO2 ppm is the highest it's ever been in almost 1000k years. We could easily be well above 500ppm by the end of the century if we do nothing to reduce emissions globally. Currently we are adding about on average. This is just another variation of "climate has changed in the past so this is alright," when what is happening right now is unprecedented in the geological record.
We just passed 400 in 2013, right now the average is well over 410+ppm, so on average around 1.5-2+ppm per year is being added. We will almost certainly be close, or over 500ppm if we do nothing.
Levi King
CO2 is one of many factors altering the planet, historically. But we know it does affect it and how.
We know people that smoke in general live less than people that don't. Now, you may smoke half a pack a day and live longer than someone that doesn't smoke because of some other factor.
But we know for sure you are gonna live less if you smoker like 3 packs a day.
It's the same principle - replace CO2 with smoking.
Jaxson Garcia
Until you retards propose working solutions like more funding for fusion power, then you can eat shit. You're not trying to fix it.
Adrian Peterson
I honestly feel pity for the ignorant like yourself, you clearly have no desire to learn or educate yourself on the subject, and are completely clouded by cognitive biases to the point at which actual, physical evidence and data mean nothing.
Zachary Ward
How about you answer the fucking question I asked?
You behave like a shill.
Colton Walker
Who cares if it is or isn't? Climate has constantly changed over the centuries. This is just a sideshow to make people argue, suck up tax money, and it gives politicians something to blab on about instead of real issues.
Wake up people.
Jaxson Sullivan
>oh no it'll be easy to fish and find new resources and transport stuff what ever will we do with all the new open waters aaaaa
Hunter Howard
Now you are thinking on local time scales. Who's to say we arent in a random 40 year warm period?
Luis Perry
Fusion power doesn't exist, what does that even have to do with the topic at hand? Yeah, hypothetically if you had trillions of cash just lying around, sure just drive that into developing tech that doesn't exist on a working level. Or, you brainlet, we could actually look at developing alternative fission nuclear tech, which already exists and isn't just hypothetical, as well as investing heavily into renewables and hydroelectric. But oh, wait, our government is run by people that deny the existence and threat of global warming and want to keep mining coal and investing trillions in developing more fossil fuels.
It's almost like you have a fundamental ignorance of how things work in the real world. By the way, there are plenty of people working hard to R&D technology to reduce CO2 emissions, but it's kind of hard to do it on a large scale when the government is run by a party that doesn't believe that a problem exists, and blatantly denies the scientific evidence in favor of feels over facts.
Isaiah Hill
Also you are wrong there are plenty of examples of rapid climate change in previous eons.
Angel Ross
Because all of the evidence points to CO2, which we can trace isotopically in the atmosphere back to human activity, is the cause of the current warming trend. It's not even a debate, it's literal facts based on an insurmountable amount of evidence.
Ian Rodriguez
OMG THIS PROVES IT'S ALL REAL BETTER START TAXING THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYTHING NOW BECAUSE IT'LL MAKE THE EARTH COOLER AND THE ICE WILL TOTALLY COME BACK
Jonathan Nelson
>than the same date Retard
Jose Bell
You can't post outdated data after posting current that was being presented completely out of context. Nothing that is current is showing the state of the ice melt skyrocketing like has been claimed for decades now. It's actually benign. We're in summer yet the data still doesn't reflect something catastrophic when used out of context, that tells me something is fishy. As a matter of fact, current data shows it's growing ice DURING SUMMER.
No, not on this scale. Those "rapid" climate changes occurred over tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands of years. There are very few actual examples on a similar timescale as the current climate trend, such as the eocene therman maximum, which is thought to be related to rapid releases of methane from the oceans. But again, even this event likely occurred over tens of thousands of years, not a little over a century as the current temperature change has occurred.
Cooper King
DAMN BRO WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO DO?!?!?! THE ICE CAPS WERE SUPPOSED TO LAST FOREVER THIS TIME AND WE FUCKED IT ALL UP SHEEEEEIT
Noah Gray
>fusion doesn't exist It does. We're working on scale and efficiency currently. >Muh green energy Oh boy, tell me how my rainy tepid jungle shithole is gonna make use of magic solar and wind to solve all my energy needs until I need to fire up the microwave.
Jace Rivera
>What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has had dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years
You realize why Greenland is called Greenland right?
>. Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300, the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic, with trees and herbaceous plants growing, and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th paralle.
kys
Levi Hill
>Is global warming happening? No. >Should we pollute less? Yes.
Leo Rogers
that man is a patrician in every sense of the word.
Joshua Howard
1. It is not all we know is that Co2 Coincides with warming we have no idea for sure what causes what. There is no solid evidence that higher CO2 will cause higher warming
2. If it is human cause what policy could possibly be enacted besides mass human death to stop it or reverse it???
3. You cant prove to me a warmer earth is worse for humans than a cold earth. For all we know a warmer earth will be net better for us.
Logan Lewis
No dude thats the overall year long graph and not the day/season graph so of course it doesnt show significant change YET
>run by a party Ah shit, I just caught this. You think your globalist democrats oppose coal? It's all rhetoric. They won't fund anything unless they have a monetary stake in it. That's how both parties work.
Owen Rivera
this nigger looks like he's a lego figure
William James
>this nigger looks like he's a lego figure ole Gooch has different afros with female sockets he can plug in to it to suit his mood
Landon Smith
>”full picture” >gives 40 years of data >for 4.5 billion year old planet Thanks for 0.00000089% of the picture, retard.
James Bell
I have spent 20 mins on this thread, never have I seen this level of raw stupidity, not just due to the inability to understand and process evidence and simple statistics, but the simple handicap of being so brainwashed that even while presented with solid proof you yet choose to be dumb
Earth won't die due to global warming, humans will, lots of them, but maybe its better that way
Aaron Bennett
no, dude, that is the DAILY change for jun 19th 2019 (TODAY). You again post FUD information, why do you guys do this? Can you not just admit that the data is out of context? Again, here is the truth of your picture.
You can prove it damages ecosystems(albeit temporarily, hundred to thousands of years) which is bad for humans
Liam Jackson
What that spike in greenland temperature is your solid evidence?
>. Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300, the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic, with trees and herbaceous plants growing, and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th paralle.
Jaxson Mitchell
>Tunisian intellectual >absolutely ignores everything contradicting his worldview in the thread and just paints it with a broad brush as dumb Kill yourself then to erase your carbon footprint, you'll buy us a few microseconds but you will be remembered for your brave sacrifice
Easton Young
Nigger we dont care
We cant stop it and you fags will just demand the west pay (((TAXES))) to international orgs
its a fucking sham.
Xavier Jones
Who cares anymore.
Nolan Phillips
Oh there was high melt on a single day???
That proves..... Nothing other than it was hot in Greenland today
Henry Nguyen
>build a greenhouse >add CO2 >check for yourself
>literally called the Greenhouse Effect after an observable everyday fenomenon
Connor Wood
Care to explain the various ways solar forcing effects our climate , can you then explain to me which of these were used by the IPCC in their new CMIP6 , i wont ask you to explain why all of them were not included ? Then finally can you please tell me why initially only one version of CMIP6 was made available and it included some solar forcing but no more than 3 months after release the IPCC made a 2nd available that did not include any solar forcing ?
Jonathan Hernandez
I very much favor fusion power and nuclear energy in general. I'm not some greenpeace fuckup.
In your own chart the ice mass is dipping at a below average rate what are you talking about?
Anthony Johnson
There's no proof of global warming tho.
Thomas James
No, it's not. It's following within the 1981-2010 mean. Compared to the way you are presenting the data with a huge spike with no other points of reference it's actually pretty reaffirming.
Zachary Hall
Holy shit you are actually retarded.
Elijah Hughes
IT'S SUMMER IN GREENLAND NOW YOU BLITHER IMBECILE!
Jack Brooks
No, it heats up because of the glass trapping the warmer air but it's basically the same principle. We know CO2 traps heat the same way a Greenhouse glass does.
You said ice was growing. Overall it is not.
Just because it follows the mean doesn't mean it's right. All the recent (past 20) years are within the normal range in your chart, but way below the mean, meaning the mean is quickly shifting downwards.
See
Caleb Miller
greenhouses get hot because the glass traps the heat inside. the greenhouse effect is supposedly co2 trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere like a big pane of gaseous glass. the problem is when the earth heats up the water evaporates and forms clouds that reflect the sun's rays away from the earth, thus cooling it and creating rain. the earth is getting greener at an accelerating rate because of the increase in co2 and rainfall while the temperature remains constant. unless your concern is for the ecosystems in arid regions you have nothing to worry about, even though most deserts have enough drainage so they won't be affected by the increase in rainfall. the worst case scenario is cyberpunk levels of rain and population concentration as agricultural markets are flooded by the excess of produce and even more rural areas are abandoned in favor of the heavy industry of major cities.
Caleb Watson
That is some next level mental gymnastics there my fren. I will not stoup to the lefts level and use one case of data to confirm my bias, or I could say the graph has exceeded the mean for ice gain multiple times, but that does not mean it's reversing any kind of course just like a slight deviation of the norm doesn't confirm the thing is going to disappear from the face of the earth.
Where in pic related for ice melt is there any case for worry? This shit was supposed to be gone by now by the way, we've been told this many times for decades.
>the worst case scenario is cyberpunk levels of rain and population concentration as agricultural markets are flooded by the excess of produce and even more rural areas are abandoned in favor of the heavy industry of major cities. No, the worst case scenario is methane deposits in the ocean trenches melting which will act like a trigger and produxe a feedback loop heating the Earth way beyond current levels.
Best case scenario at this point is some ecosystems dying, others shifting and increasing floods and draughts as climate shifts.
>Where in pic related for ice melt is there any case for worry It's not one year and one datapoint in Greenland, it's the aggregated data points across the world from the last decades.
>smokes 3 packs a day >hey I'm still alive and feel fine, smokehoaxers BTFO This is you. The CO2 hasn't fully hit yet. Wait for the feedback loops to trigger. Less ice = less albedo = more heat.
Julian Sanchez
Yes, it is. See that blue line? that's the current year. See that grey? That's the variation in melt from 1981-2010. As long as that blue line is within the grey area, it is within the average.
You realize why Greenland is called Greenland right?
>. Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300, the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic, with trees and herbaceous plants growing, and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th paralle.
Daniel Gonzalez
>As long as that blue line is within the grey area, it is within the average. The average is the thick grey line. It is below average. The grey area is the range of previous observations, not the mean. If most observations from the past two decades are below the mean then that is evidence of the climate shifting.
Benjamin Scott
who /hyperborea/ here
Noah Murphy
That was known as the Medieval Warm Period and it was a natural variation in climate, this is an unnatural, man-made variation as predicted by climatologists +20 years ago. An ongoing variation due to the insane amount of CO2 and methane being dumped on the atmosphere.
In 20 years we achieved a variation that took hundreds of years in the Middle Ages to happen naturally, you don't see what's wrong with that?
You’re a brainlet. America is one of the smallest contributors to so called “global warming” This isn’t a national issue, it’s a worldwide issue. How big of a piece of shit are you to think the US controls the world. If you want to fix the problem fix china
>The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example: [chart] >Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
>The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.
