Posted on 11/29/2012 5:25:54 AM PST by Kaslin
New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tends to now show that ice melt estimates previously calculated for Greenland have not significantly accelerated- as has been previously postulated- nor has the melt contributed in a meaningful way to the rise of sea levels.
Recently, much of the destruction on the east coast as a consequence of Super-Mega-Hurricane Sandy Gore was blamed on the rise in sea-levels, which have been blamed on…drum roll…global warming.
The newest revelation, amongst many in the last several years that have muffled the global warming chants of “settled science, settled science, settled science,” confirms that the model generally used to support climate change, global warming and/or Super-Mega-Hurricane Sandy Gore, is neither settled nor scientific.
Global Warming theorists have advanced the notion the melt from Greenland’s ice sheet is the prime culprit in elevated sea-levels. They advanced this theory after their previous theory- the ice melt in the Himalayas- was shown by the same process that has now debunked the Greenland ice theory to have been exaggerated.
And yes, the seas have risen not withstanding Obama’s election promise to make the seas stop rising. Presumably the Greatest Superhero President Ever was going to use some sort of magical veto power that was transmitted to him through his cartoon Nobel Prize Heroes to compel the seas to stop rising.
But back in the real world where science is based on facts, and prizes are awarded based on real accomplishments outside of Scandinavia and American Idol, the new report- which was generated by researchers at Princeton University- shows that the Greenland ice melt is happening at such a slow pace that in fact, there is no need to fret over the loss of ice in the Land of Green.
From the UK’s Register:
If the Greenland ice losses aren't accelerating, there's no real reason to worry about them. According to the Princeton statement:
At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters).
So does this mean that Obama has to serve 3,250 four-year terms as president before he can make the seas actually stop rising?
Liberals would like to think so.
It will probably take that long just to get an Obama budget passed.
The Register says what the report really means is that sea-rise levels from the Greenland melt will be insignificant.
“Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount,” writes the Register. “Authoritative recent research drawing together all possible causes of sea level rise bears this out, suggesting maximum possible rise in the worst case by 2100 will be 30cm. More probably it will be less, and there will hardly be any difference between the 20th and 21st centuries in sea level terms.”
But that’s very much a different conclusion than was drawn over the summer when scientists at NASA told us- gasp!- that all the ice in Greenland was melting at once, an event that had never been recorded in 30 years of satellite imaging of the ice sheets!
Imagine ice melting in the summer. Well, I never…
Yes. Never before- um, since they started looking at it in the late 1970s- had all the ice in Greenland melted at the same time. There must have been some union rule against it until now.
Bloggsters, like ScienceBlogs’ Greg Laden jumped on that NASA report saying “I have always felt that sea level rise would be quicker and higher than my colleagues in climate science have suggested.”
And he cited the report as more proof that the global-warming apocalypse, created by the fossil fuels that made possible things like indoor plumbing, modern medicine, sanitation and footwear not made from bark, will destroy the hallmarks of civilization like indoor plumbing, modern medicine, sanitation and footwear not made from bark.
But now we know that Laden was wrong.
And he’ll just have to find some other culprit for the change in the weather.
But getting past all the scientific inquiry and theorizing based on fantasy, not facts, is what global warming scientists do best.
It doesn’t have to be settled or science.
It just has to sell.
Speaking of Greenland, back when it actually earned its name by being green, were people complaining of swamped shores?
When I was a kid in the 1960s, I went to Virginia Beach. We stayed in a hotel on the beach. The Atlantic Ocean was a short trot across the “boardwalk” and sand.
I was there again this year. The same hotels are still there, with some new ones lining the same beach.
The Atlantic Ocean is still where it was in the 1960s. The same beach is still there. The same dunes. The same boardwalk. The same sand. The same crabs. The same cigarette butts. The same tacky and vulgar t-shirt shops. It’s all there in the same place.
The oceans are not rising. And if they were, we would simply move the hotels from Atlantic Ave back to Pacific Ave or Baltic Ave or to Hampton, as needed.
You are obviously one of the 1%!
It might help the conservative and Business community if they ran some advertising - “What the teach in school may be wrong” start a campaign about Ice Melts, various wraming periods and freezing periods - along with More people ide from cold than heat!” Follow that with a campaign on “College is easier, more expensive and produces fewer jobs...maybe professors are not so smart and their course are not so valuable.” oh well dreams and lottos happen
While I wholey believe the anthropomorphic global warming theory is crap.. The earth cools and warms naturally and has for millions of years, you are either in a period of warming or cooling, and nothing humans do has any significant impact on this it is the result of forces far beyond our control.. and by that I mean COSMIC forces, not even earth controlled forces.
Now, as to commercial beaches, erosion is a fact of life on any beach, most modern commercial beaches in the south in particular are rebuilt constantly by dredging.. they pump sand from the bottom of the sea back up to the beach to replenish it after storms or ongoing erosion. Beach will always exist but beaches are constantly shifting when left to their own accords.
I watched more than 100 yards of beach just up and disappear from 1 hurricane alone, and annual shifts of tens of yards of beach annually without this sort of event. Dredging was initiated there to rebuild the beaches every year from the natural events.
Just because something looks the same now as it did 50 years ago does not mean human intervention didn’t help make it so. Once there is an economic motivation to stop erosion, dredging is commonly employed.
Here is a quick proof of my point:
http://rigell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=312643
And yet tonight’s lead report on the NBC Nightly News was all about the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctica melting away to cause oceans to rise with loss of major coastal cities resulting from it.
AGW??? Pshaw!!!
All these “warmers” should be put in a traveling carnival freak show. I’m sure their misshapen heads and distorted intellects would be amusing in a sad sort of way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.