There was a "little optimum," (1100 to 1400 AD) when Greenland warmed and was settled comfortably. After that, Scandinavian settlers left. Maybe Republicans are the problem. I don't know. But how could humans have caused a 300-year break in the continuing change of climate before the industrial revolution?
3
It is easy to get lost in the absolutely stunning landscape, yet, it snaps us back into the reality of just how rapidly the ice is melting - a stark reminder that global warming occurs every second of everyday. Seeing is believing.
A team of researchers from Stanford University & UC Berkley have developed a state-by-state plan to convert the US into 100% renewable energy in 40 years. Greenpeace just released an analysis claiming 100% renewable energy by 2050, in 35 years. We know this is possible because Aspen, Colorado, Burlington, Vermont & Greenburg, Kansas have already phased out fossil fuel energy. Several more cities vow to do so, too, but is nowhere near enough!
Earth will survive, with or without us, but a few degrees rise in temperature will extinguish all life forms, us, too. So this goes beyond the question of life & death; it is a question of survival & extinction.
The urgency of now is on us. Waiting is not an option.
Kudos to NYT
A team of researchers from Stanford University & UC Berkley have developed a state-by-state plan to convert the US into 100% renewable energy in 40 years. Greenpeace just released an analysis claiming 100% renewable energy by 2050, in 35 years. We know this is possible because Aspen, Colorado, Burlington, Vermont & Greenburg, Kansas have already phased out fossil fuel energy. Several more cities vow to do so, too, but is nowhere near enough!
Earth will survive, with or without us, but a few degrees rise in temperature will extinguish all life forms, us, too. So this goes beyond the question of life & death; it is a question of survival & extinction.
The urgency of now is on us. Waiting is not an option.
Kudos to NYT
4
It is important to remember that the loss of the ice lightens the structures beneath and creates an upheaval over a massive area which will further increase sea levels.
2
"Brilliant" piece of reporting. Ice melts during summer, especially in places where the sun doesn't set for months! Who knew? In other unbelievable and unprecedented news, people from Mexico actually speak Spanish, some dog really bit an actual guy, Coca Cola is really sweet tasting, and McDonalds hamburgers are also high in fat. Oh, and we have some really cool graphics to show you.
Nothing really earth-shattering here, folks. The Greenland ice sheet is actually growing during the winter, also at an unprecedented rate. You know, winter, don't you? It's that time when it gets really cold and the sun doesn't shine in Greenland for six months. Too bad you can't or won't fly a drone to watch the snow fall and the water freeze. This didn't work, guys. I guess it's back to strategically placing temperature sensors near mechanical exhaust fans on hotel roofs to make temperature readings appear abnormally high, isn't it?
Nothing really earth-shattering here, folks. The Greenland ice sheet is actually growing during the winter, also at an unprecedented rate. You know, winter, don't you? It's that time when it gets really cold and the sun doesn't shine in Greenland for six months. Too bad you can't or won't fly a drone to watch the snow fall and the water freeze. This didn't work, guys. I guess it's back to strategically placing temperature sensors near mechanical exhaust fans on hotel roofs to make temperature readings appear abnormally high, isn't it?
2
This is the kind of glossy overexpensive study and reporting which doesn't even touch the most important points.
For instance, data shows, Greenland ice GROWS much more that it loses mass by melting, year after year. It only loses mass through calving.
Where is this in the report? Nowhere.
Instead, the impossible, under the circumstances (as ice deposits much more than it melts,)
the impossible scaremongering about ALL ice melting to make a huge wall of water? It's there.
So this makes a very good case for the obscenely huge amount of money thrown at climate alarmism to be reduced, which is what the Congress is ready to do.
Nothing too dramatic. A 90% reduction in the first year followed by a 90% reduction of what is left, for a total of a 99% reduction would bring it in line with the rest of science.
With the proceeds distributed to real science.
Let us hope that Congress is visionary enough to take this needed step ASAP.
The Greenland ice data is HERE, on a true science site.
(Greenland is part of Denmark, and this is the Danish NAS website)
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-ma...
Ice GROWTH is in blue. All maps are essentially blue.
For instance, data shows, Greenland ice GROWS much more that it loses mass by melting, year after year. It only loses mass through calving.
Where is this in the report? Nowhere.
Instead, the impossible, under the circumstances (as ice deposits much more than it melts,)
the impossible scaremongering about ALL ice melting to make a huge wall of water? It's there.
So this makes a very good case for the obscenely huge amount of money thrown at climate alarmism to be reduced, which is what the Congress is ready to do.
Nothing too dramatic. A 90% reduction in the first year followed by a 90% reduction of what is left, for a total of a 99% reduction would bring it in line with the rest of science.
With the proceeds distributed to real science.
Let us hope that Congress is visionary enough to take this needed step ASAP.
The Greenland ice data is HERE, on a true science site.
(Greenland is part of Denmark, and this is the Danish NAS website)
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-ma...
Ice GROWTH is in blue. All maps are essentially blue.
3
We are treated to reassurances that these 'scientists' know what they're doing; That the melting of ice as evidenced by the presence of rivers, is the smoking gun to climate change and our apparent imminent demise as their prognostications anticipate thir dire prophecy. Yet, when we read more carefully, these 'scientists' so called, admit that the rivers of melting ice disappear into the ice sheet and the ice melt may just as easily become refrozen. That is a 'red herring' for them telling us: 'We are clueless as to what is happening.
The question is: Why have they not searched for and found a mouth , estuary or other outlet where the ocean tides meet the river? That would be a much more meaningful piece of empirical evidence.
In fact, when one looks at the satellite image of Greenland,
https://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/greenland.jpg
what is obvious is the presence of a mountain range in a continual chain around the border of Greenland; An expected result of the over 1.5 miles of ice average thickness depressing the land below and thus leaving the mountain range where the ice ends.
There is no outlet for melting ice to enter the ocean because the weight of the ice sheet has depressed the land and consequently created a giant bath tub with no drain.
The question is: Why have they not searched for and found a mouth , estuary or other outlet where the ocean tides meet the river? That would be a much more meaningful piece of empirical evidence.
In fact, when one looks at the satellite image of Greenland,
https://summitvoice.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/greenland.jpg
what is obvious is the presence of a mountain range in a continual chain around the border of Greenland; An expected result of the over 1.5 miles of ice average thickness depressing the land below and thus leaving the mountain range where the ice ends.
There is no outlet for melting ice to enter the ocean because the weight of the ice sheet has depressed the land and consequently created a giant bath tub with no drain.
2
"The scientists will use the data, which they expect to publish in the coming months, to test whether climate models are accurate."
This is a remarkable quote. I would think that since the "science is settled" that we would already have proven that the climate models are accurate.
I would also point out that Greenland was named around the year 1000 AD by early Scandinavian explorers. They set up thriving colonies there, during the time of the Renaissance, until the middle of the 16th century when the Little Ice Age began, and they were forced to leave.
This is a remarkable quote. I would think that since the "science is settled" that we would already have proven that the climate models are accurate.
I would also point out that Greenland was named around the year 1000 AD by early Scandinavian explorers. They set up thriving colonies there, during the time of the Renaissance, until the middle of the 16th century when the Little Ice Age began, and they were forced to leave.
1
Fabulous article! Extremely informative and I love how interactive it is.
The only thing I minded was how there were several references to the "taxpayer dollars" spent---as though this were some exorbitant expense.
$3000 per device lost in the sinkhole while gathering critical data is the cost of a "business" meal out with a handful of Congressmen.
Meanwhile, these scientists are risking their lives in pursuit of scientific inquiry that may impact our entire globe. They are not making a lot of money, since their salaries must come from the grant, which also pays for expenses.
I have never heard a Congressman or political representative apologize for their salaries, staff salaries , and multiple perks such as top health care, free devices, etc etc.
If the article brings up the cost of taxpayer dollars, it should really do so for *every* article on public servants. Articles on not just the Benghazi commission and our endless wars and colossal bureaucratic waste, but also cost for individual representatives.
I don't see why scientists risking their lives for the common good should be subject to our scrutiny in an article about them, but our own political representatives should not. This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue either; I believe all parties need to be subject to scrutiny.
The only thing I minded was how there were several references to the "taxpayer dollars" spent---as though this were some exorbitant expense.
$3000 per device lost in the sinkhole while gathering critical data is the cost of a "business" meal out with a handful of Congressmen.
Meanwhile, these scientists are risking their lives in pursuit of scientific inquiry that may impact our entire globe. They are not making a lot of money, since their salaries must come from the grant, which also pays for expenses.
I have never heard a Congressman or political representative apologize for their salaries, staff salaries , and multiple perks such as top health care, free devices, etc etc.
If the article brings up the cost of taxpayer dollars, it should really do so for *every* article on public servants. Articles on not just the Benghazi commission and our endless wars and colossal bureaucratic waste, but also cost for individual representatives.
I don't see why scientists risking their lives for the common good should be subject to our scrutiny in an article about them, but our own political representatives should not. This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue either; I believe all parties need to be subject to scrutiny.
2
Pretty pictures! Can we have another flyover mid January instead of July. Who would of thought that ice melts in the middle of summer. I've read through most of the comments here and am amazed by how easily people want to believe the end of the world is upon us and we must act now before its too late (thinking used car salesman or infomercial). Really? What we are experiencing right now in regards to climate is still within the natural variability. We are talking about .6 C degrees of warming which may or may not be harmful. Are the posters here even aware of the possible good that could happen if the climate warms more? I see all the post about the end of civilization but nowhere is any honest scientist saying that this will be the end of humanity. We may have to do some dyke building or over the next hundred or so years some cities may have to move further inland but it is not the end of humanity. In fact higher CO2 concentrations will lead to increased crop production to feed more people. Also much of the northern hemisphere where most of the land is on earth will end up with even more usable farm land due to permafrost melt and longer growing seasons. You do know that most plants thrive at 1500 to 1700 ppm CO2 (ask any pot grower the simplest way to increase his yield)? Good luck with the gloom and doom!
4
Sensationalistic headline undermines the quality of reporting. The story is that scientists are gathering data that will help provide a more accurate assessment of the rate of ice melt, and acknowledge they may learn that the rate is slower than now believed. From that we get "Greenland is Melting Away?"
2
There is nothing to suggest that melting has stopped, ergo "melting away" is quite accurate.
5
Republicans, at least those who are not only denying the role of human activity in climate change but are also openly hostile to science, prove that conservative ideology is indeed fact-free and the antithesis of problem-solving. They loathe academia in the belief that academicians are fundamentally liberal and hostile to conservative values, but the real issue is that scientists are seekers of truth — data, information, facts, and thus enemies of ideology. I never trust a conservative with my vote.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
3
maybe at some point Greenland will be green again.
2
I served in the U.S. Army in Thule, Greenland in 1965-'66. When the brutally cold winter finally lifted and the temperatures increased to a balmy 25 to 35 degrees and the summer began, the land was transformed. Flowers bloomed everywhere and most of the icebergs actually left the bays surrounding Thule. But one thing never changed. The ice cap had some pools of melt water visible, but the ice shelf itself remained rock-solid. It rarely changed. And believe me, the scientists attached to Thule studied the ice shelf annually.
On a related topic, I first visited the Lake Louise Glacier in Canada almost 60 years ago. At that time the glacier extended almost a half mile out into the lake itself. It has now receded back up the mountain pass well over a mile.
These aren't "reported" instances of climate change, global warming or whatever else you'd like to call it. I witnessed these myself, and to me they're clear evidence that unless we make drastic changes to the way we do things we're facing serious, life-threatening problems in the very near future.
On a related topic, I first visited the Lake Louise Glacier in Canada almost 60 years ago. At that time the glacier extended almost a half mile out into the lake itself. It has now receded back up the mountain pass well over a mile.
These aren't "reported" instances of climate change, global warming or whatever else you'd like to call it. I witnessed these myself, and to me they're clear evidence that unless we make drastic changes to the way we do things we're facing serious, life-threatening problems in the very near future.
10
We do not deny that global warming is happening. It has been happening for 100's of years ever since the Little Ice Age ended. To suddenly say that man is inducing the warming fly’s in the face of observed facts and historical data. The benefits of warming are immense 1. An ice free north-west passage saving tens of billions in transportation costs. 2. 100 of billions of gallons of fresh water to drink. 3. 10’s of millions of acres of frozen land that can be used to produce food and provide more living space. 4. Trillions in new natural resources that can now be easily found and used. %. Hopefully in a few decades farms and vineyards can be profitable on Greenland again. Minnesotans for global warming
2
Now, if we can just re-introduce DDT into agriculture, and lead into paint, life would be grand.
8
I'm quite surprised by the number of people who claim extreme frustration because the Republicans (and their ilk) don't recognize the danger of climate change and aren't acting to reduce it. In many cases, this falls into the "nothing we can do because of THEM, so lets go on as we are" logic.
That's a total cop-out. If you are sincere about your concerns and desire to change things, then you must eliminate all consumption of non-renewable energy. Make your life a personal testament to responding to the crisis. If more and more people do that, then an alternate culture of true conservation and carbon reduction will grow.
As the counter-culture of the 60's and 70's demonstrated, if you get enough people to radically change their lives, and devote themselves to that change, then it will change the culture as a whole.
We need million man marches in Washington and elsewhere on a very frequent basis, along with huge numbers of intelligent, educated people opting out of the carbon-producing culture. A Green 3rd party that can vie for leadership.
Anything less and you are just passing the buck. Don't blame other people. Change your own life. If fifty million people in North America do that, everything will change.
But if you keep driving your car and sucking down coal watts and eating meat and everything else we know contributes to the problem (including living in places without a majority of renewable energy), then you have no basis to complain about anyone else.
That's a total cop-out. If you are sincere about your concerns and desire to change things, then you must eliminate all consumption of non-renewable energy. Make your life a personal testament to responding to the crisis. If more and more people do that, then an alternate culture of true conservation and carbon reduction will grow.
As the counter-culture of the 60's and 70's demonstrated, if you get enough people to radically change their lives, and devote themselves to that change, then it will change the culture as a whole.
We need million man marches in Washington and elsewhere on a very frequent basis, along with huge numbers of intelligent, educated people opting out of the carbon-producing culture. A Green 3rd party that can vie for leadership.
Anything less and you are just passing the buck. Don't blame other people. Change your own life. If fifty million people in North America do that, everything will change.
But if you keep driving your car and sucking down coal watts and eating meat and everything else we know contributes to the problem (including living in places without a majority of renewable energy), then you have no basis to complain about anyone else.
2
Having fewer or no children is the most effective measure one can take to reduce future carbon emissions.
5
While the video certainly sends a message, some research into Greenland's history is warranted. But as usual, is not discussed. The Vikings were able to expand their conquests further north because of the middle age warming period. A period of warming that lasted hundreds of years and created lakes, rivers, forests, and open farm lands in Greenland.
This can be followed back millions of years and is based on extracting ice cores and measuring CO2, O2, and nitrogen. What we are seeing in this video is not new, not unique, and doesn't even compare to the warming periods of the past in Greenland.
Pollution is real, population expansion is more than dangerous, but the climate will change with or without humans - and sometimes at a comparably fast rate. But even the CO2 correlation is off when you look at history. It's not just CO2; there is much more CO2 in the oceans than the atmosphere. And when it is released, oddly enough, it is not always followed by cooling or heat. Guess it's not as simple as the NYTimes wants everyone to believe. And I suspect most here will call me a climate denier or some such rubbish. But, facts are facts.
Humans have a very bizarre way of looking at history - basically, they don't see much past their own life experience and since Greenland has been frozen for most of our lives, this river is proof that the world is being destroyed by cars and fossil fuels.
This can be followed back millions of years and is based on extracting ice cores and measuring CO2, O2, and nitrogen. What we are seeing in this video is not new, not unique, and doesn't even compare to the warming periods of the past in Greenland.
Pollution is real, population expansion is more than dangerous, but the climate will change with or without humans - and sometimes at a comparably fast rate. But even the CO2 correlation is off when you look at history. It's not just CO2; there is much more CO2 in the oceans than the atmosphere. And when it is released, oddly enough, it is not always followed by cooling or heat. Guess it's not as simple as the NYTimes wants everyone to believe. And I suspect most here will call me a climate denier or some such rubbish. But, facts are facts.
Humans have a very bizarre way of looking at history - basically, they don't see much past their own life experience and since Greenland has been frozen for most of our lives, this river is proof that the world is being destroyed by cars and fossil fuels.
Fear mongering as the Paris conference approaches. Record Ice gain in Greenland https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/greenland-blowing-away-al...
Record low temps http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/record-low-temp-in-greenland/ Hard to ice to melt...
Climate Crusade is Pointless http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/french-society-of-mathematicians-global...
Green Crony energy firms push world blighting wind and solar farms instead of 4th generation nuclear http://stopthesethings.com/2015/10/23/europes-colossal-energy-disaster-e...
www.egeneration.org www.energyfromthorium.com
Record low temps http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/record-low-temp-in-greenland/ Hard to ice to melt...
Climate Crusade is Pointless http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/french-society-of-mathematicians-global...
Green Crony energy firms push world blighting wind and solar farms instead of 4th generation nuclear http://stopthesethings.com/2015/10/23/europes-colossal-energy-disaster-e...
www.egeneration.org www.energyfromthorium.com
2
Nice collection of less than credible sources. Just goes to show that popularity on the internet is not the same thing as scientific credibility, which is based on quality of work and knowledge of the subject, judged by others able to evaluate expertise.
There's quite an industry on this stuff, and it is not far removed from organizations like Heartland and its NIPCC. They send out their materials to schools, too, which is heartless indeed, deceiving hardworking teachers and gullible students with carefully constructed misinformation. Big fossil are among the wealthiest industries on earth, and they can afford the PR.
https://gpwayne.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/heartlands-nipcc-report-in-us-s...
"Such initiatives present educators with a problem. Both the official IPCC AR5 report and that of the NIPCC run to thousands of pages. ....
"Armed with only a modest knowledge of climate change science, it is all too clear that the NIPCC report is not scientific, does not accurately reflect current climate science, and deliberately and systematically seeks to misinform and mislead."
There's quite an industry on this stuff, and it is not far removed from organizations like Heartland and its NIPCC. They send out their materials to schools, too, which is heartless indeed, deceiving hardworking teachers and gullible students with carefully constructed misinformation. Big fossil are among the wealthiest industries on earth, and they can afford the PR.
https://gpwayne.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/heartlands-nipcc-report-in-us-s...
"Such initiatives present educators with a problem. Both the official IPCC AR5 report and that of the NIPCC run to thousands of pages. ....
"Armed with only a modest knowledge of climate change science, it is all too clear that the NIPCC report is not scientific, does not accurately reflect current climate science, and deliberately and systematically seeks to misinform and mislead."
6
Once you introduce Steven Goddard — a pseudonym for a non-scientist — into the discussion, you lose all credibility.
6
Susan, The Chinese Academy of Sciences disagrees with your assessment of the NIPCC report - Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony
Here is the Heartland press release from their website:
The Chinese Academy of Sciences in June 2013 translated and published a Chinese edition of Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, two hefty volumes containing more than 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data on climate change originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011.
The two books present a sweeping rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ controversial Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports were widely cited as the basis for taking action to stop or slow the advance of climate change. More recently, the IPCC has been surrounded by controversy over lapses in its quality control and editorial bias.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences is the world’s largest academy of sciences, employing some 50,000 people and hosting more than 350 international conferences a year. Membership in the Academy represents the highest level of national honor for Chinese scientists. The Nature Publishing Index in May ranked the Chinese Academy of Sciences No. 12 on its list of the “Global Top 100” scientific institutions – ahead of the University of Oxford (No. 14), Yale University (No. 16), and the California Institute of Technology (No. 25).
Anthony Watts WUWT
Here is the Heartland press release from their website:
The Chinese Academy of Sciences in June 2013 translated and published a Chinese edition of Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, two hefty volumes containing more than 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data on climate change originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011.
The two books present a sweeping rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ controversial Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports were widely cited as the basis for taking action to stop or slow the advance of climate change. More recently, the IPCC has been surrounded by controversy over lapses in its quality control and editorial bias.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences is the world’s largest academy of sciences, employing some 50,000 people and hosting more than 350 international conferences a year. Membership in the Academy represents the highest level of national honor for Chinese scientists. The Nature Publishing Index in May ranked the Chinese Academy of Sciences No. 12 on its list of the “Global Top 100” scientific institutions – ahead of the University of Oxford (No. 14), Yale University (No. 16), and the California Institute of Technology (No. 25).
Anthony Watts WUWT
2
The IPCC has consistently underestimated all measures of the damage done by carbon pollution, compared to actual measurements, including the rise in emissions, temperature, arctic meltdown, ocean acidification, thawing tundra, and sea level rise. On sea level rise, the IPCC in 1995 predicted little change in Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets: but in 2007 the IPCC had to sharply revise its projections to reflect new data that melting ice of Greenland and Antarctica are contributing to sea level rise.
Scientists now see that "ice cracks, lubrication and sliding of ice sheets" and are darkening and absorbing more heat, melting ice sheets quicker.
Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.
The IPCC underestimated the damage from carbon pollution partly because they failed to predict that the United States would ignorantly, recklessly and irresponsibly fail to act to curb pollution.
Scientists now see that "ice cracks, lubrication and sliding of ice sheets" and are darkening and absorbing more heat, melting ice sheets quicker.
Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.
The IPCC underestimated the damage from carbon pollution partly because they failed to predict that the United States would ignorantly, recklessly and irresponsibly fail to act to curb pollution.
2
Source for reality is worse than predicted:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340
2
Sherry, thanks again for inadvertently making my point. Look at the first graph in the article you cited. You'll notice that even though the article was written in 2012 they only carried the "observation" line out to about 2005-2008. If you look at the last data point, or use NASA/ GISS current data for temps (0.68 degrees above the 1950-1980 moving average, which is the zero point on the graph) you'll see it contacts the graph at the bottom of the light blue shaded area. That represents the lower range of the low CO2 scenario even though CO2 has rise at the higher scenario level. And this is what Spencer/ Christy have consistently found... Again using NOAA, NASA/GISS data. The predictions of global temps and sea levels over estimate what we have observed for the past 25 years and yet tin spite of that they keep raising their estimates.
1
Sherry, you don't know what you are talking about. The IPCC estimates on climate change are based on pessimistic assumptions regarding feedback mechanisms. They are overestimating greenhouse effects, not underestimating them, in many people's educated opinions. Also, the ice sheets in Antarctica are expanding, not receding. Google the "Ship of Fools" out on an environmental cruise, who got stuck in the Antarctic ice in the middle of the southern hemisphere's summer two years ago.
1
The temperature at Kangerlussuaq, Greenland is now 16 degrees. Let's see some pictures of Greenland in a month when Winter has begun.
What was the carbon emissions of the Author , photographers and crew for this article?
These are pretty pictures for the people that buy into every alleged calamity out there
What was the carbon emissions of the Author , photographers and crew for this article?
These are pretty pictures for the people that buy into every alleged calamity out there
2
It's fair to ask about total greenhouse emissions for the scientists.
Then, divide by the number of people who collectively consume the information.
That gives you the per-person impact of conducting this climate research.
I suspect my cup of coffee caused considerably more emissions than my newspaper article.
Then, divide by the number of people who collectively consume the information.
That gives you the per-person impact of conducting this climate research.
I suspect my cup of coffee caused considerably more emissions than my newspaper article.
4
The New York Times has raised the alarm about Greenland before, alternating great melt V great freeze (natural variation just like now read for yourselves and prepare for the next cycle and the articles to come about the great freeze):
1930
TimesMachine: June 24, 1930 – NYTimes.com
WEGENER PARTY FINDS INLAND ICE MELTING; Stakes Set Up in Greenland Show 8-Foot Drop in Year--Group Crosses Ice Barrier.
BERLIN, June 23.--The following cable has been received from the Wegener Greenland expedition:
1932
TimesMachine: May 15, 1932 – NYTimes.com
NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents
WE still speak of "the Ice Age" as if it belonged to the remote geological past. Geologists have reached the conclusion that there were several ice ages. What is more, the last Ice Age, known as the Quaternary, is only about half over, despite our blistering Summers.
1958 December 07, 1958, TimesMachine: – NYTimes.com
Frozen Key To Our Climate; The world's ice masses may be ushering in a fifth Ice Age.
SEVERAL thousand scientists of many nations have recently been climbing mountains, digging tunnels in glaciers, journeying to the Antarctic, camping on floating Arctic ice. Their object has been to solve a fascinating riddle:...
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/10/new-york-times-sliming-their-reade...
1930
TimesMachine: June 24, 1930 – NYTimes.com
WEGENER PARTY FINDS INLAND ICE MELTING; Stakes Set Up in Greenland Show 8-Foot Drop in Year--Group Crosses Ice Barrier.
BERLIN, June 23.--The following cable has been received from the Wegener Greenland expedition:
1932
TimesMachine: May 15, 1932 – NYTimes.com
NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents
WE still speak of "the Ice Age" as if it belonged to the remote geological past. Geologists have reached the conclusion that there were several ice ages. What is more, the last Ice Age, known as the Quaternary, is only about half over, despite our blistering Summers.
1958 December 07, 1958, TimesMachine: – NYTimes.com
Frozen Key To Our Climate; The world's ice masses may be ushering in a fifth Ice Age.
SEVERAL thousand scientists of many nations have recently been climbing mountains, digging tunnels in glaciers, journeying to the Antarctic, camping on floating Arctic ice. Their object has been to solve a fascinating riddle:...
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/10/new-york-times-sliming-their-reade...
1
Thank you for this great educational article. I work in the climate change area, on clean energy access and it's great to know more on the science underpinning our efforts. Surprised how often money was mentioned. The 700,000 grant for 3 years is not much by research funding and other grant funding standards. This is the most appropriate way to spend taxpayer money and more should be spend on this life saving research of the planetary systems. A lot of taxpayer money are wasted on much less important projects. I realize that it won't help the "deniers", but most of them are not ignorant or lack information. Rather, they chose to "doubt" or deny for their own political or economic reasons, since there are still powerful entrenched interests particularly in transportation and energy sectors worldwide opposing transition to low carbon pathways...
6
Outstanding article. Kudos to the journalists and to the scientific team.
2
If the scientists go back I think they ought to take Representative Smith and any of his colleagues who think taxpayer money is better spent on things like their Benghazi witch hunt and drop them all into the moulin.
5
Excellent article with moving graphics. Keep 'em coming!
This sort of information needs to be replicated, repeated, and highlighted. It just shows why we need a leader who puts issues of our climate on the front burner - Bernie Sanders.
This sort of information needs to be replicated, repeated, and highlighted. It just shows why we need a leader who puts issues of our climate on the front burner - Bernie Sanders.
2
This is a great journalism. I am happy that the Times is turning its resources to coverage of this increasingly critical issue.
By 2040, 24 decades will have passed since 1800. As Earth warms, the tremendous amounts of carbon stored in cold permafrost regions as organic compounds, and in sea beds as marginally stable methane hydrates, are already starting to be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane. Further accelerating the global warming process beyond what humans are doing by burning fossil fuels.
At trigger point, the global warming process will run away – global temperatures will increase uncontrollably from the release of the stored carbon in the permafrost and the oceans, even if humans completely stopped using fossil fuels.
Have we already passed the trigger point? Maybe, maybe not. What is clear, however, is that we only have a short time before we reach it, and then go to Environmental Hell and human extinction. Will the trigger point be 2040, 24 decades from 1800? Nobody knows.
I hope the Times will also pursue technologies that will replace fossil fuel combustion. We believe that only cheaper, better alternatives will be acceptable. We believe superconducting Maglev is such a solution for freight logistics & passenger intercity and intracity transport. We also believe that MaglevLaunch makes it possible to beam very cheap electricity to Earth. With cheap electricity, we know how to make synthetic gasoline and diesel for air & water.
By 2040, 24 decades will have passed since 1800. As Earth warms, the tremendous amounts of carbon stored in cold permafrost regions as organic compounds, and in sea beds as marginally stable methane hydrates, are already starting to be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane. Further accelerating the global warming process beyond what humans are doing by burning fossil fuels.
At trigger point, the global warming process will run away – global temperatures will increase uncontrollably from the release of the stored carbon in the permafrost and the oceans, even if humans completely stopped using fossil fuels.
Have we already passed the trigger point? Maybe, maybe not. What is clear, however, is that we only have a short time before we reach it, and then go to Environmental Hell and human extinction. Will the trigger point be 2040, 24 decades from 1800? Nobody knows.
I hope the Times will also pursue technologies that will replace fossil fuel combustion. We believe that only cheaper, better alternatives will be acceptable. We believe superconducting Maglev is such a solution for freight logistics & passenger intercity and intracity transport. We also believe that MaglevLaunch makes it possible to beam very cheap electricity to Earth. With cheap electricity, we know how to make synthetic gasoline and diesel for air & water.
3
Isn't it true that a picture is worth a thousand words? Well, there you have it, folks. Just look at the speed with which that water is moving. Although the poetry of its flow seems so touching, the consequences of global warming are not so comforting. May this shed some light on our elected officials, specially those who deny that global warning is a natural cyclical phenomenon.
2
As a southern transplant to New England for 30 years I became well acquainted with slush, which I seem to remember melts much faster than ice.
The darker areas on the lower left look like the ice pack is turning to slush.
The darker areas on the lower left look like the ice pack is turning to slush.
1
The article does not mention the fact that Greenland's ice cap was much ,much smaller at the time of the Norwegian Settlement from 968 until the 15th century. At time the west coast had trees and barley was grown by the viking settlers. Certainly any discussion of the effects of sea level rise should mention this previous period of reduced ice cover
6
That would require journalism and facts. The New York Times is in the propaganda business.
1
Skip - that doesn't fit the agenda! Shhhhhhhhh!
2
Don't forget the tree stumps showing up in melting glaciers in Alaska and Switzerland. More evidence that it was warmer 1000 years ago. The real evidence that the medieval warm period existed is much wider than a few tree stumps, but was missed by the NYT and their inside Mann.
Why did the earth warm in the early part of the 20th Century at the same rate as the CO2 emitting late 20th to early 21st century? Questions go unanswered.
But I am easily fooled, with only a Physics PhD.
Why did the earth warm in the early part of the 20th Century at the same rate as the CO2 emitting late 20th to early 21st century? Questions go unanswered.
But I am easily fooled, with only a Physics PhD.
1
Greenland melt is being measured and the rate of melt is increasing. Yes, winter is coming and that involves freezing, but in geological time even a lifetime is a fraction of a blink of an eye. Meanwhile, the trend is very clear, and extends over decades at the least, and should not be ignored.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
I'd suggest going to the main NSIDC site as well, where more summary information is presented and other bodies of ice discussed with up-to-date information factored in.
Same here, the main site is also useful (see menu on left at link):
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
"With an area of 1.71 million km2 and volume of 2.85 million km3, the Greenland ice sheet is the second largest glacial ice mass on Earth. Only the Antarctic ice sheet is larger. The freshwater stored in the Greenland ice sheet has a sea level equivalent of +7.4 m. The discharge of the ice to the ocean my melting and runoff, and iceberg calving would not only increase sea level, but also likely alter the ocean thermohaline circulation and global climate. The high albedo (reflectivity) of the ice sheet surface (together with that of snow-covered and bare sea ice, and snow on land) plays an important role in the regional surface energy balance and the regulation of global air temperatures."
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
I'd suggest going to the main NSIDC site as well, where more summary information is presented and other bodies of ice discussed with up-to-date information factored in.
Same here, the main site is also useful (see menu on left at link):
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
"With an area of 1.71 million km2 and volume of 2.85 million km3, the Greenland ice sheet is the second largest glacial ice mass on Earth. Only the Antarctic ice sheet is larger. The freshwater stored in the Greenland ice sheet has a sea level equivalent of +7.4 m. The discharge of the ice to the ocean my melting and runoff, and iceberg calving would not only increase sea level, but also likely alter the ocean thermohaline circulation and global climate. The high albedo (reflectivity) of the ice sheet surface (together with that of snow-covered and bare sea ice, and snow on land) plays an important role in the regional surface energy balance and the regulation of global air temperatures."
7
The problem is the people who claim global warming is NOT happening offer only one solution: The US and other advanced countries should do nothing, other than cling to 19th Century energy sources, and wait to see what the consequences of inaction might be. Eventually, the fossil fuels so fervently worshipped by the climate change deniers will become far too rare and expensive, and better energy sources will have to be found if we are to continue to have modern luxuries such as air travel, electric lighting, agricultural machinery, indoor climate control, and personal vehicles. Climate deniers will have these changes forced upon them, on way or the other. Doing things the smart, timely way will help prevent some of the economic crises, global famines, wars for resources and other grave conditions we will face if we decide to do it the hard way. Are we intelligent enough to do the right thing?
7
"They might even learn, Dr. Smith said, that the water is refreezing within the ice sheet and that sea levels are actually rising more slowly than models project." Did you catch that??? Way down at the end of the article??? They don't currently know if the water from the melting ice is re freezing or running into the ocean. And yet the modeling in the IPCC et al reports assume it is running into the ocean therefore they are projecting large sea level rise in the future. The problem is, over the last 25 years reality hasn't followed the models. Sea level rise has proceeded at about 1/4-1/3 the rate that was predicted by the 1992 IPCC report. Ditto for global temps. Why? Maybe because the models have underestimated the environment's adaptive mechanisms like melted water refreezing. So bear in mind, the next time you hear Al Gore or other liberal climate wolf cryers, that this article shows there is a lot we don't know about how the planet reacts to change and until we know more, predictions of the future are tenuous at best and maybe not worth the economic changes and impacts they are recommending. If nothing else it surely sounds like the debate shouldn't be over.
4
Actually, experts think the IPCC forecast is too conservative. What is widely understood is that in the best case scenario, in which humans acted aggressively and responsibly to reduce their greenhouse gas pollution we could keep sea level rise to manageable levels, whereas if we take a wait and see position, like the commenter suggests, sea level rise will flood all coastal cities within 100 years. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/201...
3
Sherry, you're not listening, the IPCC predictions over the last 24 years have consistently overestimated the rise in sea level and global temps by a factor of 2-5 x depending on whether you're looking at the low estimate or the high estimate. Why does that fact never cause pause in the "experts" that think those overs estimations are too conservative, or those that continue to blindly believe them. I don't deny mild to moderate warming over the last 30 years, almost identical to then evel of warming seen between 1910-1940, what I question is how much we are contributing and how adaptive them planet is. And actual observations over the last 25 years supports that better that the predictions of the experts that contributed to the IPCC. Show me the data, not predictions, to show I'm wrong.
RP, Sherry is not listening to you, and you don't like that. But she is paying attention to real information which is broadly available from all credible sources worldwide. It appears you are reading selectively to "prove" your point (you don't) and ignoring anything you don't want to know, like unskeptical "skeptics" across the board.
5
Melting Greenland brought to you by Congressional Republicans! Denying the existence of climate change to protect dirty energy.
5
It is remarkable that this extended and deeply reported piece fails to mention that global warming is caused by humans, namely by the unlimited burning of fossil fuels. A terrible oversight.
2
Extraordinary article and I believe the research is well worthy. It seems that as a species we are in trouble, and dragging every other living creature in the planet along.
Bernie Sanders is the only presidential candiddate truly resonating to this.
Bernie Sanders is the only presidential candiddate truly resonating to this.
In these discussions the issue often does not get dissected sufficiently. We know, for example, that the climate is always changing and we are in a period of warming. Someone may know the answers to these questions but I have not seen them mentioned.
- as a starter we accept that human created CO2 is the cause of most of the warming, if so:
-- what will be the effect on global CO2 accumulation if the USA shuts down all its fossil fuel power plants? Would such a shut down cause a reversal in the warming trend? When would we return to temps of, say, 50 years ago?
-- what will be the effect if China and India shut down all their fossil fuel power plants? Would such a shut down cause a reversal in the warming trend? When would we return to temps of, say, 50 years ago?
-- what would be the difference between a phase out of fossil fuel plans over ten years vs 30 years in the above scenarios?
What is the expectation, the expected result, of the actions proposed by those who see the sky falling tomorrow? If public sacrifice is required we need to know that the sacrifice will have significant and lasting effect.
- as a starter we accept that human created CO2 is the cause of most of the warming, if so:
-- what will be the effect on global CO2 accumulation if the USA shuts down all its fossil fuel power plants? Would such a shut down cause a reversal in the warming trend? When would we return to temps of, say, 50 years ago?
-- what will be the effect if China and India shut down all their fossil fuel power plants? Would such a shut down cause a reversal in the warming trend? When would we return to temps of, say, 50 years ago?
-- what would be the difference between a phase out of fossil fuel plans over ten years vs 30 years in the above scenarios?
What is the expectation, the expected result, of the actions proposed by those who see the sky falling tomorrow? If public sacrifice is required we need to know that the sacrifice will have significant and lasting effect.
1
The people who are concerned about the accumulation of heat-trapping gasses like CO2 in the atmosphere see the concentration rising strikingly faster and higher than normal since humanity evolved. To drag our feet, to question the science, to insist on further proof and not do anything to try to slow the spewing of heat-trapping gasses, to not lift a finger to try to bend and flatten the curve, is tantamount to a crime against humanity. This we know: we must do whatever is reasonably within our power to reduce the use of carbon fuels. such as what President Obama has done, to at least slow the rising heat. We must not do what Republican media and Congressional Republicans have done, which is do everything within their power to dispute the science, to block the creation of a strong global treaty, and generally to block all efforts to steer this ship away from heat-related disaster, in order to protect fossil fuel industry profit.
5
Sherry Jones, you write well about an important issue, thank you.
3
Sherry Jones, you said "...to question the science....is tantamount to a crime against humanity." I wonder if you read this article closely. It is stated unequivocally that the "scientists" do not know what is happening to the meltwater that is flowing down the river. The head of the research team said that "we scientists" use computer models to make predictions, but they have no empirical evidence to back up their claims. They are speculating. Speculation is not science. At best it is mere hypothesis.
In other words, this $750,000 research project is questioning the science, or lack of science, that would lead the headline writer for the NYT to ludicrously proclaim Greenland is Melting Away - some ice is melting, not the island itself.
In other words, this $750,000 research project is questioning the science, or lack of science, that would lead the headline writer for the NYT to ludicrously proclaim Greenland is Melting Away - some ice is melting, not the island itself.
2
Somebody should tell the Chinese that they are doomed to fail as they attempt to extend their reach into the South China Sea by pouring sand on reefs, and then claiming the new artificial islands are theirs.
One thing the article left out as far as I could tell though... What happens when this melt-water pours into the ocean?
Perhaps the Vikings will reassert past claims to land that they once farmed and began building agricultural communities before they were driven out by climate change.
One thing the article left out as far as I could tell though... What happens when this melt-water pours into the ocean?
Perhaps the Vikings will reassert past claims to land that they once farmed and began building agricultural communities before they were driven out by climate change.
1
Interesting point. As sea level rises, how much can be built up. However, most people do not grasp that acceleration is starting slow and only just showing up in a properly noticeable way, so they can get away with this for quite a while. Sadly, that appears to be enough for them, and nobody can stop them from thinking short term, as we all tend to do. Wake up calls need emergencies to be heard by enough people to make a difference.
3
"Any cuts could directly affect the work of Dr. Smith and his team, who are supported by a three-year, $778,000 grant from NASA, which must cover everything, including researchers’ salaries, flights, food, computers, scientific instruments and camping, safety and extreme cold-weather gear. Every scientist, Dr. Smith said, is keenly aware that the research costs 'a tremendous amount of taxpayer money.'"
How much did the same Republicans just spend, in utter futility, in investigating Hillary Clinton's alleged Benghazi scandal? Was it $5,000,000? That, I would call, is a tremendous amount of taxpayer money.
How much did the same Republicans just spend, in utter futility, in investigating Hillary Clinton's alleged Benghazi scandal? Was it $5,000,000? That, I would call, is a tremendous amount of taxpayer money.
3
If man is causing exponential change to the climate through industrialized activities, I firmly believe unbiased research will prove or disprove assertions. Findings from scientific studies, whether they are environmental, medicinal, technological, etc., have been employed to improve quality of life. I am not a scientist, but I enjoy my air conditioning, heating, microwave, automobile, vaccination from once life threatening diseases. I do not need to thoroughly understand every process of everything in order to benefit. I'm sure there is more things I am completely unaware of that benefit me, but to discredit scientific research because "I'm not a scientist" would either shine a light on my ignorance, cause others to question my motives or both.
In a larger picture, if industrial pollution is a primary factor to climate change and rising the sea level, China's island construction in the South China Sea will be never ending.
In a larger picture, if industrial pollution is a primary factor to climate change and rising the sea level, China's island construction in the South China Sea will be never ending.
1
Eric you make good points at one level but leave something out. Seeking more evidence and research for something that is neither new nor confusing is a way of promoting doubt and delay, and there is no more time.
The simple physics has been increasingly well understood over the past two centuries and clear as clear since the 1980s. Here's a short summary since the words are often used to distort. Heat-trapping greenhouse gas accumulation has been increasing energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is disrupting the earth's circulatory system (climate change).
While attacks proliferate, evidence is building. All one needs is a global view over time to note things like the subject matter of this article, California's drought, Arctic melt, the increase in Pacific superstorms, and on and on.
The simple physics has been increasingly well understood over the past two centuries and clear as clear since the 1980s. Here's a short summary since the words are often used to distort. Heat-trapping greenhouse gas accumulation has been increasing energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is disrupting the earth's circulatory system (climate change).
While attacks proliferate, evidence is building. All one needs is a global view over time to note things like the subject matter of this article, California's drought, Arctic melt, the increase in Pacific superstorms, and on and on.
3
Very slick and very uninformative.
How does this year's summer melt compare to the ones on record? NOTHING on that...
How much would the ice melted contribute to the raise in sea levels?
NO WORD on that.
When did Greenland glaciers start to melt? NADA.
As it happens, last summer June July there WAS an unusually strong melt, but it was followed by an unusually strong recovery. So that the ice balance for the previous 12 months, which is computed end August, was slightly under average ice for 2104-15 than the average 1990-2011, but much better than 2012 or 2007.
Since August 2015 till now we are over average again.
See the data here.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150926221737/http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenla...
And keeping in mind that there were documented 300 farms with animals surviving over winter in Vikings' times, and nothing remotely possible now, it shows that glaciers advanced around the Little Ice Age, are generally receding now, but we are still well under the temps from 100 years ago, and glaciers are bigger now than then.
Where are the huge grain fields now?
And the belief that we can change the direction of climate with legal action has more to do with shamanism than science.
PS Measurements show that Greenland ACCUMULATES mass every year, but loses by calving. On total it loses 200GT/yr. That translates to 0.66 mm of sea rise/year.
How does this year's summer melt compare to the ones on record? NOTHING on that...
How much would the ice melted contribute to the raise in sea levels?
NO WORD on that.
When did Greenland glaciers start to melt? NADA.
As it happens, last summer June July there WAS an unusually strong melt, but it was followed by an unusually strong recovery. So that the ice balance for the previous 12 months, which is computed end August, was slightly under average ice for 2104-15 than the average 1990-2011, but much better than 2012 or 2007.
Since August 2015 till now we are over average again.
See the data here.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150926221737/http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenla...
And keeping in mind that there were documented 300 farms with animals surviving over winter in Vikings' times, and nothing remotely possible now, it shows that glaciers advanced around the Little Ice Age, are generally receding now, but we are still well under the temps from 100 years ago, and glaciers are bigger now than then.
Where are the huge grain fields now?
And the belief that we can change the direction of climate with legal action has more to do with shamanism than science.
PS Measurements show that Greenland ACCUMULATES mass every year, but loses by calving. On total it loses 200GT/yr. That translates to 0.66 mm of sea rise/year.
5
If would serve Times readers well to call up the link provided by Adrian O. It tells a different story than he is trying to peddle.(A common tactic of the denialists is to throw a link in a bid to look authoritative, while hoping at the same time no one actually clicks on it.)
His last paragraph, for example, is a bit of a twist on what the study actually shows:
"If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade."
That's a measurable and considerable amount of loss: "200 Gt/year over the last decade." In other words, the replacement does no make up for the loss.
The bit about Viking settlements is a diversion.
His last paragraph, for example, is a bit of a twist on what the study actually shows:
"If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade."
That's a measurable and considerable amount of loss: "200 Gt/year over the last decade." In other words, the replacement does no make up for the loss.
The bit about Viking settlements is a diversion.
6
Why is history a diversion?
1
These Republicans want to defund data collection about Arctic melting because defunding data collection by the CDC about gun violence has worked so well. If you have no data, it is easier to make up your own theories to suit your core beliefs, like guns make you safe, health insurance will make the country have a recession, quantitative easing will cause inflation, three strikes works, and immigration is bad for the country.
6
If you have no data, it is easier to make up stories about Greenland Melting Away. No Data. That's what this research project is all about. As the lead scientist was quoted in the article, we like to sit at our computers and make models, but the models are not based on reality. So, $750,000 was granted to these scientists to actual study one tiny aspect of glacial melt in Greenland. As one of them said in the article, after we analyze what is actually happening, we'll try to correct our models with real data.
"These Republicans" didn't do a very good job of defunding the $Billion that goes to climate change research.
"These Republicans" didn't do a very good job of defunding the $Billion that goes to climate change research.
They need to budget for extreme-cold gear and still claim that "global warming" exists? Gotcha!
1
Must be all the cars, factories and steel mills up there............. close em immediately! And fine em too!
This article does not, at the end, tell us anything in regard to the original question. Is the actual ice sheet of Greenland melting and if so at what rate. And the fact is that it is extremely difficult for a change of a few degrees in the climate to make a major difference in the number of days that Greenland is above 32 degrees, which is when ice melts.
As things have always been in Greenland the temperature is above freezing for more than 4 months a year, and below freezing during all of the winter and the end of fall and the beginning of spring.
So a rise of say 3 degrees would make a difference only on those days that it once would have been 29 degrees and is now 32 degrees. And we all know that in all seasons the temperature always fluctuates, going a bit higher and then a bit lower. Its not that once it hits 32 degrees it remains that way, but stays that way for a few days and then goes back down to below freezing, at which time whatever had melted freezes once more.
So the only time that a rise of 3 degrees, and it is certainly not more at the current stage, would contribute to melting is would be perhaps an additional week in both the fall and the spring. And Greenland will not melt from 2 more weeks of above freezing weather. After all it has always been way above freezing for well over 5 months a year without causing any problems. So it makes little sense that an additional 2 weeks of above freezing weather will cause any substantial melting.
As things have always been in Greenland the temperature is above freezing for more than 4 months a year, and below freezing during all of the winter and the end of fall and the beginning of spring.
So a rise of say 3 degrees would make a difference only on those days that it once would have been 29 degrees and is now 32 degrees. And we all know that in all seasons the temperature always fluctuates, going a bit higher and then a bit lower. Its not that once it hits 32 degrees it remains that way, but stays that way for a few days and then goes back down to below freezing, at which time whatever had melted freezes once more.
So the only time that a rise of 3 degrees, and it is certainly not more at the current stage, would contribute to melting is would be perhaps an additional week in both the fall and the spring. And Greenland will not melt from 2 more weeks of above freezing weather. After all it has always been way above freezing for well over 5 months a year without causing any problems. So it makes little sense that an additional 2 weeks of above freezing weather will cause any substantial melting.
After centuries we still are learning about our world. Too many think that we are not resovable for changes. The truth is we are and need to work save the world.
2
Can you global warming alarmists please explain three things:
1. What would have to occur to disprove AGW?
2. Why has a link between CO2 and paleo-climate never been shown?
3. Did all the carbon in fossil fuels come from ancient air?
1. What would have to occur to disprove AGW?
2. Why has a link between CO2 and paleo-climate never been shown?
3. Did all the carbon in fossil fuels come from ancient air?
1
1 prove co2 is not a greenhouse gas
2 see the 400,000 year old Vostok ice cores from antarctica showing exactly that correlation
3 yup old air. and you can tell the fossil carbon is ancient because it contains no carbon 13
2 see the 400,000 year old Vostok ice cores from antarctica showing exactly that correlation
3 yup old air. and you can tell the fossil carbon is ancient because it contains no carbon 13
Congress refusing funding on this research is a bit like a parent thinking that if they simply refuse to look at their child's report card then the child will not be failing. Talk about a head in the sand (where there used to be ice) approach!
5
If the seas are rising, wouldn't it make more sense to relocate the political center of the country as well as the financial center of the country away from the East Coast? Why is NY/NJ demanding billions from the federal government to dig a new tunnel between then for trains to run on when it would make much more sense to relocate people and businesses?
It is disheartening to watch scientists study the effects of global warming with absolutely no intelligence as to the real cause of why earth is warming. Weather modification has been around for over a century now. The top 7 US contractors are aerospace companies that received billions upon billions of tax dollars each year, they also hold many of the weather modification patents. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. There is a ton of money to made on the stock market through weather derivatives as well. I live in California and the sky is heavily sprayed before any storm system comes in to prevent rainfall. California is not in a drought by accident. It is rather ironic that weather modification has not been suggested to help solve the drought problems but governor Jerry Brown believes in weather modification enough to give millions of California taxpayer dollars to the BLM to cloud seed in other states.
Unbelievable. Are we concerned with truth? In such a major piece on Greenland ICE SHEET MELTING, with great state-of-the-art graphics, should mention not have been made that the Greenland ice sheet melts, on average, every 150 years (and for the past several thousand years), that it's currently happening, and is "right on time"?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
2
you misread the nasa article. the 150 year melt cycle is a reliable variation in the melt rate, but it never threatened to lose the whole sheet.
now global warming may increase the peak melts and shorten the cycle. since the ice ages greenland has had thousands of feet of ice. now at these increasing melt rates we may lose the entire sheet, raising the oceans 26 feet.
now global warming may increase the peak melts and shorten the cycle. since the ice ages greenland has had thousands of feet of ice. now at these increasing melt rates we may lose the entire sheet, raising the oceans 26 feet.
All this talk about climate change and rarely any fingers pointing at the culprit--the animal agriculture industry.
1
It does not make sense that the water is re-freezing after going into the Moulin. If that were happening the surface water should back up creating large lakes.
1
Again, optimism is delusional.
"South-east Asia over the next three decades could lose 16% of its labour capacity due to rising heat stress, which could cause absenteeism due to dizziness, fatigue, nausea and even death in extreme cases, the British firm Verisk Maplecroft said. The company predicted the biggest losses in productivity in Singapore and Malaysia, with 25% and 24% decreases from current levels. Indonesia could see a 21% drop, Cambodia and the Philippines 16% and Thailand and Vietnam 12%."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/too-hot-to-work-climate-cha...
"South-east Asia over the next three decades could lose 16% of its labour capacity due to rising heat stress, which could cause absenteeism due to dizziness, fatigue, nausea and even death in extreme cases, the British firm Verisk Maplecroft said. The company predicted the biggest losses in productivity in Singapore and Malaysia, with 25% and 24% decreases from current levels. Indonesia could see a 21% drop, Cambodia and the Philippines 16% and Thailand and Vietnam 12%."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/too-hot-to-work-climate-cha...
2
Since there is no labor shortage, reduced productivity would result in growth in employment
“Only by melting the ice in the heart of Man, does Man have a chance to change and begin using his knowledge wisely.” - - Angaangaq Angakkorsuaq, shaman, healer, storyteller and carrier of the Qilaut (winddrum) is a Kalallit Elder whose family belongs to the traditional healers of the far North from Kalallit Nunaat, Greenland. Angaangaq is an internationally respected Elder for the native communities of the Circumpolar Arctic, North and South America and Europe.
My hope is that our scientists are also talking to the indigenous people who have lived here for thousands of years, people who are the keepers of the wisdom of this land.
My hope is that our scientists are also talking to the indigenous people who have lived here for thousands of years, people who are the keepers of the wisdom of this land.
3
We're all indigenous to planet earth. My wisdom is the earth's temperature is always changing -- holding steady would be truly weird. My wisdom is that men have been successfully dealing with environmental issues for ages. My wisdom is that ancient Europeans (the Dutch), centuries ago and without modern equipment materials, or technology, but with only brains, human muscle, animals, and wind power, pushed back the sea. My wisdom is that in the last 150 years men have only invented air-conditioning, computers, trains, automobiles, aviation, modern medicine, telecommunications, space flight...and YOU think we can't deal with a very slowly warming planet? PTL we have a Republican Congress to slow this mad dash off the cliff.
There's no good reason to fear climate change. Climate change is perfectly normal. There is no crisis. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
6
Amen
1
Everything at a high enough level is a pollutant. CO2 is above 400 ppm for the first time in 700,000 years. CH4 and N20 are at levels not seen before in human history. All of these gases cause global warming, and these increased gas levels are from human activity. Human caused global warming is real. What you believe doesn't matter to science. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence, truth is truth.
The short term thinkers - a.k.a. global warming deniers - are dooming future generations because they want the Koch brothers to continue to make huge profits from fossil fuels. Deniers boggle the mind being this oblivious.
The short term thinkers - a.k.a. global warming deniers - are dooming future generations because they want the Koch brothers to continue to make huge profits from fossil fuels. Deniers boggle the mind being this oblivious.
carbon dioxide levels control water vapor levels in the atmosphere causing global warming.
climate change at this rate is not normal it is catastrophic.
if co2 in the ocean rises sufficiently it kills all shelfish since they cannot form calcium carbonate.
climate change at this rate is not normal it is catastrophic.
if co2 in the ocean rises sufficiently it kills all shelfish since they cannot form calcium carbonate.
1
First, congrats to NYT for magnificent digital storytelling. You are using digital medium to report a story which wouldn't be the same in print. Kudos to the team. Most print publications haven't figured out how to use the new medium and are mere reproductions of print with hyperlinks. NYT is at the cutting edge.
Second, please do a follow up story when the scientists report their findings.
There is little doubt that global warming is anthropogenic (i.e. by human activity) in its source cause. Prof. Vaclav Smil, an expert in renewable energy writes an annual paper for JPMorgan private clients. This year's paper shows what decarbonization of electric grid means in practical terms. There are substantial costs involved. Transition from coal to oil as the primary fuel source for energy in late 19th and early 20th century created enormous wealth and improved lives. Transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy can also create huge wealth. Some of world's most valuable companies are oil companies. There will inevitably be disruptions as we transition from fossil to renewable energy but there is no reason to believe it will impoverish us.
Energy policy is crucial in such change but so is innovation. Oil displaced coal not because of policy alone but it was more versatile, abundant and cheap. We need to innovate (with or without subsidies) until renewable energy meets that test. If and when it does, the switch to renewable energy will become inevitable.
Second, please do a follow up story when the scientists report their findings.
There is little doubt that global warming is anthropogenic (i.e. by human activity) in its source cause. Prof. Vaclav Smil, an expert in renewable energy writes an annual paper for JPMorgan private clients. This year's paper shows what decarbonization of electric grid means in practical terms. There are substantial costs involved. Transition from coal to oil as the primary fuel source for energy in late 19th and early 20th century created enormous wealth and improved lives. Transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy can also create huge wealth. Some of world's most valuable companies are oil companies. There will inevitably be disruptions as we transition from fossil to renewable energy but there is no reason to believe it will impoverish us.
Energy policy is crucial in such change but so is innovation. Oil displaced coal not because of policy alone but it was more versatile, abundant and cheap. We need to innovate (with or without subsidies) until renewable energy meets that test. If and when it does, the switch to renewable energy will become inevitable.
1
Replacing fossil fuels with more expensive sources of energy is going to make the 1% richer and everyone else poorer.
Transition from fossil fuels will make Prof. Smil wealthy as it has Al Gore. The rest of us will pay for it in diminished lifestyles.
Transition from fossil fuels will make Prof. Smil wealthy as it has Al Gore. The rest of us will pay for it in diminished lifestyles.
1
Yes. To see just how correct you are, simply do a scatter diagram of GDP/capita vs. Energy use/capita, for each country in the world. Very illuminating. Poorest nations use the least energy use/capita, richest the most. What is really fascinating is the nations line up from poorest to richest along a line loosely shaped like a decaying inverted exponential.
Even if that were true, a few extra pennies in your pocket will not improve your ability to breathe. Why is the continued pollution of air, water and soil so important to you?
2
Wow - fantastic article so well done in every respect. Why I will pay good money to read the NYT as long as I live
3
The only thing all of the scientists agree on is that they need more money for research.
3
Practically speaking, all climatologists agree man's constant spewing of garbage into the air is causing accelerated global warming.
Their five-figure annual stipends wouldn't be enough to fill the gas tanks of the oil industry execs' limos.
Their five-figure annual stipends wouldn't be enough to fill the gas tanks of the oil industry execs' limos.
yeah why dont they give more money to scientists you believe in, like the ones that show cigarettes dont cause cancer? or the ones that think the sun is getting hotter . its all so political.
So many incredibly impressive things in this article. The User Interface and User Experience of those that designed the article and interactive contents is superb. The news content is incredibly mind-blowing, and the way the information is provided makes one aware how important this research is, and the danger of climate change deniers.
5
The energy problem is currently a trilemma:
1) Decarbonized, 2) Affordable 3) Reliable (non intermittent).
It seems impossible to obtain an energy source with all three attributes simultaneously-
Decarbonized and A̶f̶f̶o̶r̶d̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ and Reliable? Nuclear
D̶e̶c̶a̶r̶b̶o̶n̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ and Affordable and Reliable? Petroleum
Decarbonized and Affordable and R̶e̶l̶i̶a̶b̶l̶e̶? Solar, Wind, Hydro
To judge whether a source is Decarbonized is basically a scientific and not an economic or political assessment. However, both Reliability and Affordability are entirely dependent on our technol-political-economic systems. It took a hundred years to build a vast energy grid infrastructure that gives industrialized countries electricity-on-demand. That infrastructure, from power generation and transmission to distribution to homes and businesses, has been called "the greatest US engineering achievement of the 20th century" by members of the US National Academy of Engineering. That infrastructure is now old-- The average age of transformers is 49 years old and the oldest transformer is 103 years old. That infrastructure required trillions of $ of public investment and the solution of innumerable technical challenges by atleast 4 generations of engineers/politicians/regulators/lawyers/industries.
Lets think clearly now. To surmise that Decarbonization of our entire grid can occur 1)soon 2)inexpensively or 3)without concentrated and coordinated effort by many people is sheer lunacy.
1) Decarbonized, 2) Affordable 3) Reliable (non intermittent).
It seems impossible to obtain an energy source with all three attributes simultaneously-
Decarbonized and A̶f̶f̶o̶r̶d̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ and Reliable? Nuclear
D̶e̶c̶a̶r̶b̶o̶n̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ and Affordable and Reliable? Petroleum
Decarbonized and Affordable and R̶e̶l̶i̶a̶b̶l̶e̶? Solar, Wind, Hydro
To judge whether a source is Decarbonized is basically a scientific and not an economic or political assessment. However, both Reliability and Affordability are entirely dependent on our technol-political-economic systems. It took a hundred years to build a vast energy grid infrastructure that gives industrialized countries electricity-on-demand. That infrastructure, from power generation and transmission to distribution to homes and businesses, has been called "the greatest US engineering achievement of the 20th century" by members of the US National Academy of Engineering. That infrastructure is now old-- The average age of transformers is 49 years old and the oldest transformer is 103 years old. That infrastructure required trillions of $ of public investment and the solution of innumerable technical challenges by atleast 4 generations of engineers/politicians/regulators/lawyers/industries.
Lets think clearly now. To surmise that Decarbonization of our entire grid can occur 1)soon 2)inexpensively or 3)without concentrated and coordinated effort by many people is sheer lunacy.
5
Electricity from solar and wind cost three to five times what electricity from existing coal plants costs. Hydro can be cost effective, but there is no way the wealthy environmentalists will allow it. Nuclear cost would be reduced if the government would allow local residents to approve it and disallow lawsuits from outsiders. And if Carter's ban on reprocessing of fuel could be lifted.
spend a trillion dollars for a trillion watts of solar and you are done. use the defense budget you would have spent on oil wars.
and build a few batteries, ask elon musk how.
and build a few batteries, ask elon musk how.
This is great scientific work but I have to ask; why isn't it funded by a coalition of countries that could benefit? I'm not discrediting the work or the investigation into global warming. I'm just trying to make the point that if more countries committed funding to perform the research it would be better supported and its results taken more seriously by the world community.
Greenland, Arctic and Antarctic research is often multinational.
http://newyork.thecityatlas.org/people/james-white/
James White led a team in June:
"...We try to share the expense with a bunch of different countries. The project I’m working on now is co-funded by the U.S., by Denmark, and by Germany, roughly equally. We’re partners together, we write papers together, we do field work together. The folks who are up there right now are probably 30% each of us Danes, Americans and Germans. We do try to get Italian or French cooks, because we’re not dumb (laughs). We do have an excellent American cook this time around."
http://newyork.thecityatlas.org/people/james-white/
James White led a team in June:
"...We try to share the expense with a bunch of different countries. The project I’m working on now is co-funded by the U.S., by Denmark, and by Germany, roughly equally. We’re partners together, we write papers together, we do field work together. The folks who are up there right now are probably 30% each of us Danes, Americans and Germans. We do try to get Italian or French cooks, because we’re not dumb (laughs). We do have an excellent American cook this time around."
1
These icy rivers are the rivers of Climate change. Mark Carney recently wrote, that global warming is not the tragedy of the commons, but the tragedy of our time horizons. The climate simply does not obey any time-scales on which 21st century humans seem to make decisions.
Business cycles? 8-12 years (time between booms and busts)
Political cycles? 4-8 years ( elections)
Technology cycles? 2 years (Apple)
Financial cycles? 3 months (Quarterly reports)
Carbon cycles? Hundreds of years (residence time of CO2 in atmosphere, or equilibration of carbon sinks into the ocean or land)
How do we slow the anthropocene?
Business cycles? 8-12 years (time between booms and busts)
Political cycles? 4-8 years ( elections)
Technology cycles? 2 years (Apple)
Financial cycles? 3 months (Quarterly reports)
Carbon cycles? Hundreds of years (residence time of CO2 in atmosphere, or equilibration of carbon sinks into the ocean or land)
How do we slow the anthropocene?
7
Not only that -- Carney's warning (as the Governor of the Bank of England) has to do with the shock to a carbon-based economy if we attempt to transition off fossil fuel too late. The way to stabilize the economy is to begin to lower emissions, as fast as we can, so that the market does not abruptly price both the upcoming damage and the cost of transition to zero carbon energy in one disruptive jolt.
3
Yes indeed, Carney would like a managed transition to a decarbonized economy and seeks a shift in financiers perception of carbon risk from physical damage and liabilities as you point out. I would like to see that risk accurately priced, and financiers to move their investments into the renewable energy infrastructure. Basically the finance and insurance industry have two options: either finance change or change finance.
2
Beautiful story showing an encouraging face on the problem—encouraging because these energetic, fearless, perceptive and persuasive young researchers are doing this for me and my grandchildren. All is not lost. As we understand more and as we see more awe-inspiring videos good things will happen. Maybe not in my time frame, but they will happen. Thank you for such an impressive exposition of our problem.
2
I've been conducting research annually in the Siberian Arctic since Soviet times, traveling at various times by foot, reindeer sledge, railway, huge all-terrain vehicle (called 'trekol' (or TRansport EKOLogiskaya) and quite often, particularly when I lead large teams, by helicopter. Traveling light is essential. Although research budgets in Europe are under pressure due to the financial crisis, I am sickened by the investigation of NSF projects by Republican House members. The same people who think the planet is 4000 years old are supposed to be the arbiters of valid scientific inquiry in the 21st century, when we are on the cusp of global scale changes unprecedented in human history, and perhaps the entire geological record? They are "not scientists", yet feel entitled to sift through research grants and give thumbs up or thumbs down? I am grateful for the scientific training I had in the US but firmly believe I made the right decision to leave 28 years ago, when Reagan and James Watt were just beginning their assault on the environment and the role of science in political decision making. Remember Reagan's 1981 statement that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do"? I was an undergrad in environmental studies then in Vermont and saw the writing on the wall. My native US has become a more hostile place for science and I watch with dismay from afar as young minds are turned off. Whither the "magic of the marketplace" the Republicans crow about when we need it most?
9
ya, but where can one go for trying to get a real solution implemented
one that controls sea level, earth's temp and flood control/ending starvation
so far the only one i've seen that'll work will destroy the ozone layer
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/27-27/16331-ending-global-warm...
one that controls sea level, earth's temp and flood control/ending starvation
so far the only one i've seen that'll work will destroy the ozone layer
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/27-27/16331-ending-global-warm...
Scary story
FANTASTIC graphics
FANTASTIC graphics
4
Please look at list of the members of the House Committee on Science and contact your representative.
here is a partial list of members.
Lamar Smith, Texas
Frank Lucas, OK
F. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin
Dana Rohrbacher, CA
Randy Neugeberger, TX
Michael McCaul, TX
Mo Brooks, Alabama
Randy Hultgren, Ill
Bill Posey, FL
Steve Knight, CA
here is a partial list of members.
Lamar Smith, Texas
Frank Lucas, OK
F. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin
Dana Rohrbacher, CA
Randy Neugeberger, TX
Michael McCaul, TX
Mo Brooks, Alabama
Randy Hultgren, Ill
Bill Posey, FL
Steve Knight, CA
3
The hydrostatic physics of supersaturated glacial melting is well-chroniced in the excellent film Chasing Ice.
https://chasingice.com/
When the anthropological and the geological timeline for such events merges succinctly then climate chaos occurs. A no-fix zone.
https://chasingice.com/
When the anthropological and the geological timeline for such events merges succinctly then climate chaos occurs. A no-fix zone.
2
Most disturbing was the mention about "Leading the Republican charge on Capitol Hill is Representative Lamar Smith of Texas" who is spending millions of taxpayer money on a witch hunt to deliberately slow down the pace of scientific research. We simply can't stand for such obstruction and denial in the face of such an overwhelmingly urgent problem.
3
People talk about "somebody" doing something about climate change. Well that "somebody" is us. We (the people in the industrialized world) are causing this. I see an awful lot of people who complain about politicians not doing anything about climate change, who are living in large air-conditioned houses, burning natural gas, driving low gas-mileage SUVs, eating factory farmed meat and dairy, and buying lots of cheap stuff made and shipped from overseas. What exactly do we expect the government to do about our excessive consumption?
6
Most of the species on this planet, us included, had sufficient populations
and diversity within the population to steadily evolve over eons in response
to environmental changes. So besides insects and bacteria what species
will be able to adapt to millions of years of stored carbon dioxide released
in two centuries. Anyone?
and diversity within the population to steadily evolve over eons in response
to environmental changes. So besides insects and bacteria what species
will be able to adapt to millions of years of stored carbon dioxide released
in two centuries. Anyone?
2
One item worthy of note it the existence of internal lakes of meltwater within the Glaciers , apparently within all glaciers (think hollowed out ice cubes in your drink).
That is why the wide variance in mass loss, such as Greenlands 450 Gigatons one year and approx 8 Gigatons another, the melt builds up the internal lakes via the moulins, then a rupture occurs , whether from one of the "earthquakes" when a major calving even occurs, or melt of the drain area.
So figures can mask the reality.
QWhat is not being covered is the consequences of that fresh meltwater, sure AMOC slowing is starting to score a mention, but the slowing overturning also reduces the oxygenation of the deeper oceans.
It also prevents the warmer deeper saline oceans from radiating to the atmosphere allowing heat build up and increased deep melting of the glacier underbellies .
It provides that surface temperature differential and deeper ocean thermal energy to build up increasingly more and more powerful Hurricanes/Typhoons. It is not just a matter of sea level rise. The geological record shows the consequences of those massive storms and floods in the ancient past.
Worth having a good look at Hansen's last paper.
Also glacier melt alters the rotational balance of the earth by shifting fixed surface mass, this increases wobble affecting tectonic plates - increased geological activity, happening now and accelerating.
That is why the wide variance in mass loss, such as Greenlands 450 Gigatons one year and approx 8 Gigatons another, the melt builds up the internal lakes via the moulins, then a rupture occurs , whether from one of the "earthquakes" when a major calving even occurs, or melt of the drain area.
So figures can mask the reality.
QWhat is not being covered is the consequences of that fresh meltwater, sure AMOC slowing is starting to score a mention, but the slowing overturning also reduces the oxygenation of the deeper oceans.
It also prevents the warmer deeper saline oceans from radiating to the atmosphere allowing heat build up and increased deep melting of the glacier underbellies .
It provides that surface temperature differential and deeper ocean thermal energy to build up increasingly more and more powerful Hurricanes/Typhoons. It is not just a matter of sea level rise. The geological record shows the consequences of those massive storms and floods in the ancient past.
Worth having a good look at Hansen's last paper.
Also glacier melt alters the rotational balance of the earth by shifting fixed surface mass, this increases wobble affecting tectonic plates - increased geological activity, happening now and accelerating.
2
Here is a story you'll never see on FOX News...
2
like many people, I am embarassed by the hysterical bleating that is written on these pages by those supporting "climate change."
Why don't you people be honest. The earth has warmed by 1.4 degrees in the last 140 years. Maybe it will warm by that much in the next 140 years though many of you had us going towards an ice age in the mid to late 1970's.
Global warming, climate change and whatever fancy buzz words is merely an attempt to extract as much money from tax payers for a government controlled economy as possible. With many of you, of course, in positions of power and authority.
Why don't you people be honest. The earth has warmed by 1.4 degrees in the last 140 years. Maybe it will warm by that much in the next 140 years though many of you had us going towards an ice age in the mid to late 1970's.
Global warming, climate change and whatever fancy buzz words is merely an attempt to extract as much money from tax payers for a government controlled economy as possible. With many of you, of course, in positions of power and authority.
3
Facts all wrong. We are headed for 4C by the end of the century if we're lucky (and 2 would be bad) with an accelerating situation that will break down civilization as we know it in short order, perhaps in the lifetimes of young people today.
These ill informed attacks grab ideas they like and call it skepticism. But real scepticism looks at all information, especially the best information.
In order to hold these beliefs, one has to hide one's eyes from the kind of thing that provides us with all modern technology and health care. Would you seek out a doctor who said you were OK because you didn't want to know?
These ill informed attacks grab ideas they like and call it skepticism. But real scepticism looks at all information, especially the best information.
In order to hold these beliefs, one has to hide one's eyes from the kind of thing that provides us with all modern technology and health care. Would you seek out a doctor who said you were OK because you didn't want to know?
1
Absolutely love these extremely welll done multimedia stories. Great experience reading!
2
some entrepreneur should bottle it
i mean, how much more exotic can you get
it would replace evian overnight
i mean, how much more exotic can you get
it would replace evian overnight
1
Beautiful footage. Excellent graphics map/overhead image.
2
Melting into what? The warm-mongers promised us that the oceans would be gone by 1995. The science was settled!
2
Who said that? Be specific.
All I can say is that I am glad that I am old. I will probably not live long enough to see the most devastating effects. Climate change deniers should refer to Dick Cheney's 1% Doctrine, as quoted in a book by Ron Suskind, "The One Percent Doctrine: "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction — and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time — the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." Therefore, if there is a 1% chance that climate change is real, and we can do something about it, "The United States must now act as if it were a certainty."
21
We are a strange culture. We are interested by what is interesting and, perhaps, calls for an intellectual approach to a problem, all problems. What we are incapable of doing is appeciating and understanding the suffering we have and are creating. Are there lives, however insignificant to us, that are affected, destroyed, by Greenland melting or are we simply taken by the pictures and discussions?
3
Yes, everyone's lives are affected, both significant and "insignificant" (and what a disgusting idea, an "insignificant" life!
2
Yes and no, I think.
The climate change deniers suffer from myopia.
They cannot see the big picture. If we have a winter with plenty of snow or a summer free of heat waves, and then they scoff at "global warming." They fail to recognize that it is "global climate change".
It doesn't matter if humans started it. We are exacerbating it. Even still, we need to understand the potential MAGNITUDE of it, regardless of the causes. This is a strong component of the need for scientists out there collecting data. If we are not prepared for the changes that we fail to prevent, we're doomed. Our society is SO FRAGILE... if an infrastructure fails, food and energy supplies will be dramatically reduced or cut off, starving millions and inciting mayhem. And the wealthy elite will only enjoy abundance a little longer than the rest of us, until they suffer the same fate. But they cannot see or accept that... it's not REAL to them. Again... myopia.
They cannot see the big picture. If we have a winter with plenty of snow or a summer free of heat waves, and then they scoff at "global warming." They fail to recognize that it is "global climate change".
It doesn't matter if humans started it. We are exacerbating it. Even still, we need to understand the potential MAGNITUDE of it, regardless of the causes. This is a strong component of the need for scientists out there collecting data. If we are not prepared for the changes that we fail to prevent, we're doomed. Our society is SO FRAGILE... if an infrastructure fails, food and energy supplies will be dramatically reduced or cut off, starving millions and inciting mayhem. And the wealthy elite will only enjoy abundance a little longer than the rest of us, until they suffer the same fate. But they cannot see or accept that... it's not REAL to them. Again... myopia.
7
We know from scientific data that Roman times were warmer than today. Items such as vineyard in the U.K. show that.
We know from scientific data that Medieval times had periods when temperatures were warmer than today. Items such as Viking farms in Greenland show that.
The question arises... did similar "Greenland is melting away" occur in those two examples? What does the data show?
We know from scientific data that Medieval times had periods when temperatures were warmer than today. Items such as Viking farms in Greenland show that.
The question arises... did similar "Greenland is melting away" occur in those two examples? What does the data show?
4
simply not true. In order to assert that you have to ignore quite a few recent years. Recent years are the hottest on record, and the increase is a trend, leading towards heats unknown in hundreds of thousands of years, before earth became so hospitable to us all.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-last-great-global-warming/
"Back then, around 56 million years ago, I would have been drenched with sweat rather than fighting off a chill. Research had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-last-great-global-warming/
"Back then, around 56 million years ago, I would have been drenched with sweat rather than fighting off a chill. Research had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down."
2
Wrong: around 56 million years ago:
"The Last Great Global Warming"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-last-great-global-warming/
" The Last Great Global Warming
"Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of Earth's most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison with what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future"
"The Last Great Global Warming"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-last-great-global-warming/
" The Last Great Global Warming
"Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of Earth's most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison with what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future"
2
The evidence is in. Time (long over due) to legislate and begin action in earnest. Increase development of sustainable energy sources, institute strict fuel mileage guidelines, regulate the trucking industries contribution on a much greater scale, force coal burning electric producing plants to close or switch to alternative sources. I only hope we are not too late. America led the way to the moon, we can lead the way to global climate stability. Global climate change should be the no.1 issue in the upcoming elections. Not how many times a candidate can use the word Nazi. This issue effects everyone on the planet. Let's police the world in this sense instead of with the military.
3
Asked by Poster:
Beverly: "The question we all must ask, carefully analyze through responsible internationally verified data, is this: What is the advantage, politically and economically, for those with the loudest voices, to continue claiming that climate change is only a natural cycle?"
Answered by the article...?
"Each year, the federal government spends about $1 billion to support Arctic and Antarctic research by thousands of scientists like Dr. Smith and his team."
Beverly: "The question we all must ask, carefully analyze through responsible internationally verified data, is this: What is the advantage, politically and economically, for those with the loudest voices, to continue claiming that climate change is only a natural cycle?"
Answered by the article...?
"Each year, the federal government spends about $1 billion to support Arctic and Antarctic research by thousands of scientists like Dr. Smith and his team."
Would you suggest that all research in any field must be done free of charge in order to be trustworthy? Better throw away hearing aids, pacemakers, antibiotics, aspirin, jets, cvs, computers etc.
Challenging credibility based on who signs the paycheck is a good first step. But only a first step. You must then look at the scientific credentials, the scientific basis of the theories, the data (all data - not cherry-picked)...etc.
Challenging credibility based on who signs the paycheck is a good first step. But only a first step. You must then look at the scientific credentials, the scientific basis of the theories, the data (all data - not cherry-picked)...etc.
3
We will not be harmed by our efforts to mitigate our negative effect on the planet. A 'War Time' effort for carbon release neutral or carbon release negative (recapture in flora) will create industry and purpose in ways impossible to foresee. Even if climate change is a hoax, these efforts will leave humankind and this planet better than we are now. There is no reason not to undertake the effort.
2
Val in Brooklyn, NY
The title grabbed me and scared me. Before I don't get another word in, one question: HOW MAY I HELP TO STOP IT?
Submitted 10-27-15@6:03 p.m. EST
The title grabbed me and scared me. Before I don't get another word in, one question: HOW MAY I HELP TO STOP IT?
Submitted 10-27-15@6:03 p.m. EST
3
maybe instead of oil pipelines we'll be building a big one for water, from Greenland to California.
2
Everybody is for the environment and wants to be a responsible green citizen, especially here in Colorado; however, farm fields and natural grasslands continue to be plowed under for new subdivisions, which include, concrete sidewalks, asphalt roads and three-car garaged five bedroom houses. In addition, along with the houses come the neighborhood strip malls with their huge parking lots. It sure takes a lot of energy to heat (it can get real cold here) and cool these trophy ego-tripping houses. Good luck heating those houses with wind and solar energy.
Maybe we should live differently if we are really worried about climate change from carbon dioxide. By the way, planting more trees and natural grasses might be a start instead of destroying them.
Maybe we should live differently if we are really worried about climate change from carbon dioxide. By the way, planting more trees and natural grasses might be a start instead of destroying them.
3
Global warming is a good thing. Here in Colorado it gets very cold in the winter I need it to warm up in order to improve my quality of life.
1
Colorado relies on snow pack for water....it may get warmer for you, but you may not have much to drink if snowfall come up short.
1
the acidification of the oceans killing all shellfish is not worth keeping colorado a bit warmer.
Greenland is melting away but not for the first time and not for a thousand years. During the warm period before the most recent ice age, 120,000 years ago, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted.
3
How many people and civilizations did that affect?
3
120,000 years ago! I can only imagine the climate histerics back then blaming the burgeoning industry of fire and its ravages against the planet.
Wow, that it has not been this bad for 120,000 years is good news to you? Wake up! Back then, we didn't have 7 billion people and counting.
1
If people believe that there is not some form of climate change going on, all they need to do is look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portage_Glacier
This is the Portage Glacier, near Anchorage, AK. The top photo is what it looks in 2009, the bottom, 1958.
This is it today:
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x56c87473cda3522b:0xe1123401d9ee31f7!2m5!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i100!3m1!7e1!4shttps://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/3748351!5sportage+glacier+today+from+visitor+center+-+Google+Search&sa=X&ved=0CI0BEKIqMApqFQoTCI60v5zM48gCFYsriAodD_8HZw
This Visitor Center, in the bottom photo, was built next to the glacier. Today to see the glacier, you must go by boat.
In 1994, when I saw it, it was much closer to shore, than the 2009 photo. While you could not walk up to it, it dominated the view, by 2009, 15 years later it is almost out of view. Today it is out of view.
This article brings it home how serious the melt is getting. This is not voodoo science, but a real calamity being played out in slow motion. People, who think this is a bold face lie, have not taken the time to look at articles like this. It makes one wonder how much more dumbed down this nation is going to become. I guess when the West Coast, Gulf Coast, Washington, New York and Boston start flooding out, then they will react.
By that time it will be too late.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portage_Glacier
This is the Portage Glacier, near Anchorage, AK. The top photo is what it looks in 2009, the bottom, 1958.
This is it today:
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x56c87473cda3522b:0xe1123401d9ee31f7!2m5!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i100!3m1!7e1!4shttps://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/3748351!5sportage+glacier+today+from+visitor+center+-+Google+Search&sa=X&ved=0CI0BEKIqMApqFQoTCI60v5zM48gCFYsriAodD_8HZw
This Visitor Center, in the bottom photo, was built next to the glacier. Today to see the glacier, you must go by boat.
In 1994, when I saw it, it was much closer to shore, than the 2009 photo. While you could not walk up to it, it dominated the view, by 2009, 15 years later it is almost out of view. Today it is out of view.
This article brings it home how serious the melt is getting. This is not voodoo science, but a real calamity being played out in slow motion. People, who think this is a bold face lie, have not taken the time to look at articles like this. It makes one wonder how much more dumbed down this nation is going to become. I guess when the West Coast, Gulf Coast, Washington, New York and Boston start flooding out, then they will react.
By that time it will be too late.
11
The visuals in this article are stunning and heartbreaking at the same time. Even more heartbreaking: that these scientists are forced to do such critical research under such primitive conditions (i.e. using hand-warmers to keep batteries alive, etc.) while US presidential candidates continue to deny the funding as well as that any of this is even happening.
11
I'm getting a solar energy system installed on my house, big enough to take care of all my needs, including the electric car I plan to buy in the next year or so. I be paying as little as possible to questionable folks, like the Saudis, Russians and Texans.
6
This is why I love the NYT. No comment needed. Just watch and wonder.
2
I find Rep. Smith's approach on climate change the most interesting part of this article. We can afford to spend, according to CBS 60 Minutes, $10 million a day, including burning 4 million pounds of jet fuel a day, bombing ISIS, a minor threat to the US, in the Middle East. But we can't afford $259,333 a year for the next 3 years to determine if we are destroying the planet.
10
If Lamar Smith really believed that there was no problem with climate change, he would want to increase research funding to prove that he is right. Instead he cuts the funding because he doesn't want the truth to be known. The man is just despicable.
10
What a silly waste of taxpayer money.
From Yahoo comments on any article about supposed global warming, I learned that there more arctic ice than ever, the earth's temperature hasn't gone up in decades and it goes up and down all the time anyway, and the global warming hoax was cooked up secretly by thousands of scientists all around the world to get more and more lavish government grants just like this one so they can live a life of luxury at taxpayer expense. Or something.
From Yahoo comments on any article about supposed global warming, I learned that there more arctic ice than ever, the earth's temperature hasn't gone up in decades and it goes up and down all the time anyway, and the global warming hoax was cooked up secretly by thousands of scientists all around the world to get more and more lavish government grants just like this one so they can live a life of luxury at taxpayer expense. Or something.
5
just go and look in the mirror and ask yourself why are you antiscience and anti the next generations.
The people who claim to possess a multi-part model that tells them the rate at which CO2 emissions are rising, temperatures therefore rising, glaciers therefore melting, and oceans therefore rising have as yet to produce any scientific consensus on that model.
The science on that topic is simply not settled. Claiming that Greenland is going to melt (eventually) is about as meaningful as claiming that the coming winter will be chilly.
The science on that topic is simply not settled. Claiming that Greenland is going to melt (eventually) is about as meaningful as claiming that the coming winter will be chilly.
6
You mis-state, or perhaps, misunderstand the article...or both.
You know the NRA and its minions have effectively blocked research on gun violence--it's actually banned from any federal agency to do research. The convservative head of House Science committee wants to cut this Greenland research. Meanwhile, the good republican congressman from Utah has effectively ended a 50 year, bipartisan, Land & Water Conservation Fund that helps protect national parks and public lands--first time since it's inception in 1965. And, the current House GOPers want to cut the Pentagon's research on climate change even though they believe it is the #1 security risk.
Maybe the full impact of melting Greenland icesheets is not fully understood...but it's pretty clear who wants to keep us in the dark about science and research.
You know the NRA and its minions have effectively blocked research on gun violence--it's actually banned from any federal agency to do research. The convservative head of House Science committee wants to cut this Greenland research. Meanwhile, the good republican congressman from Utah has effectively ended a 50 year, bipartisan, Land & Water Conservation Fund that helps protect national parks and public lands--first time since it's inception in 1965. And, the current House GOPers want to cut the Pentagon's research on climate change even though they believe it is the #1 security risk.
Maybe the full impact of melting Greenland icesheets is not fully understood...but it's pretty clear who wants to keep us in the dark about science and research.
9
How "settled" do you need it to be? Do you need to see the ocean sloshing over streets in Miami before deciding that it's worth taking real action? (Hint: this is already happening.) If you were told by experts that you had a 50% chance of dying in the next few years that could be substantially delayed by changing your diet, wouldn't you make that change? You're not seeing or accepting the validity of the work done by thousands of experts because you are afraid of what they have discovered.
Disqus, there's no point in answering your concerns when you refuse to learn anything.
2
journalism like this is why 1) i am hopeful and 2) i am worried.
as for
1) excellent reporting and use of technology to humanize this epochal transformation
as for
2) I am worried AND saddened more news outlets that pander to the lowest common base do not cover this or other transformational issues.
And we know in this case 1+2 most certainly does not equal 3.
as for
1) excellent reporting and use of technology to humanize this epochal transformation
as for
2) I am worried AND saddened more news outlets that pander to the lowest common base do not cover this or other transformational issues.
And we know in this case 1+2 most certainly does not equal 3.
2
This research is as important as any I can imagine in that it will show in stark relief our future that is coming faster than anyone thought when the alarm bells regarding global warming and the impending ice melts were clearly starting to go off during the mid-1980s.
The world’s ice reservoirs are melting faster than ever yet we have “leaders” like Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, Chair of the House Science committee wants to eliminate funding for research into the science programs that measure the effects of global warming on Greenland ice.
Does Rep. Smith think that if we stopped measuring the ice melt it would suddenly stop melting? That if we cover our eyes, turn away from things that go against what we believe that as a result they’ll suddenly disappear? Conservative Republicans do seem live in their own reality that seems to include “magical thinking” with most Republicans running for President being strong subscribers to it.
Dear Republicans: You’ve able obscure the facts of what occurred regarding the arms deal with Iran in 1981 and Iran-Contra affair including the cocaine money during Reagan as well as the fact of what occurred during the Bush/Cheney including the level of responsibility for 9/11, fact-manufacturing tactics in the run up to the 2nd Iraq War, torture responsibility, etc. Like it or not, physical reality has a way of intruding on one’s magical, fact-free world. This won’t just disappear into obscurity, into a rat hole because you want it to.
The world’s ice reservoirs are melting faster than ever yet we have “leaders” like Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, Chair of the House Science committee wants to eliminate funding for research into the science programs that measure the effects of global warming on Greenland ice.
Does Rep. Smith think that if we stopped measuring the ice melt it would suddenly stop melting? That if we cover our eyes, turn away from things that go against what we believe that as a result they’ll suddenly disappear? Conservative Republicans do seem live in their own reality that seems to include “magical thinking” with most Republicans running for President being strong subscribers to it.
Dear Republicans: You’ve able obscure the facts of what occurred regarding the arms deal with Iran in 1981 and Iran-Contra affair including the cocaine money during Reagan as well as the fact of what occurred during the Bush/Cheney including the level of responsibility for 9/11, fact-manufacturing tactics in the run up to the 2nd Iraq War, torture responsibility, etc. Like it or not, physical reality has a way of intruding on one’s magical, fact-free world. This won’t just disappear into obscurity, into a rat hole because you want it to.
9
As frightening as it is to contemplate this ice sheet melting, I can't help but be impressed by the magnificence and beauty of this raw environment. Kudos to the NYtimes for putting me in the front seat and providing such detail. It makes it difficult to be apathetic when confronted with this stunning visual evidence.
3
I remember an article a few years ago that postulated that the fresh water from a melting Greenland, being denser than sea water, could force the Gulf Stream far deeper that it is now and that the parts of Europe that depend upon the warming effects of the Gulf Stream would be severely and negatively impacted.
????
????
2
Sadly, there is a very real possibility that the incursion of freshwater will disturb and maybe even has disturbed the Gulf Stream, which will result in a chilling of northern Europe and the north Atlantic while the rest of the globe is warming. Keep your eyes and ears open. Unfortunately, this is the seat of a lot of political power which has the ability to further obstruct action on climate change while there is local cooling.
Right now, New York City is parallel to Rome and nothing will change that. But as the Gulf Stream stops warming us here and in the UK etc. we will get colder for a little while (a few years).
Right now, New York City is parallel to Rome and nothing will change that. But as the Gulf Stream stops warming us here and in the UK etc. we will get colder for a little while (a few years).
1
Do climate change deniers really believe what they peddle? Naomi Klein appeared to say "no" in her book "This Changes Everything". At a conference where they spoke, she found that they were fighting the admission that climate change is real because it would mean big government is necessary and beneficial. It's a philosophical argument which they're willing to fight even if it means changing the entire climate of the globe and all the damage that this entails.
How can we profit on the changes due to climate change is probably what they are wondering.
I think we will make more headway if we stop falling for the pretense that the argument (obstruction) is about science.
How can we profit on the changes due to climate change is probably what they are wondering.
I think we will make more headway if we stop falling for the pretense that the argument (obstruction) is about science.
3
It is so easy to tap away on our computers, blaming the Koch brothers, Ted Cruz, and any number of climate change deniers. The hard truth is that we are all complicit in the slow-motion catastrophe of Climate Change.
We fly in airplanes. We drive cars. We buy food from 1000s of miles away. We instinctually by the lowest cost items, even if they come from 2 continents away.
Look in the mirror. Stop flying. Reduce your driving. Buy less.
We fly in airplanes. We drive cars. We buy food from 1000s of miles away. We instinctually by the lowest cost items, even if they come from 2 continents away.
Look in the mirror. Stop flying. Reduce your driving. Buy less.
10
And while you're at it, go vegan; animal agriculture is responsible for a huge amount of greenhouse gases.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
(By the way, report in the above link is five years old, and most people are still not getting the message.)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
(By the way, report in the above link is five years old, and most people are still not getting the message.)
2
NOAA stated that 2015 so far has been the hottest since record keeping in 1880. In the Pacific El Nino (rising ocean temperature oscillations) this year is on pace with being the 2nd strongest El Nino, and the CPC estimates that there is 95% chance that it will roll through the 2015-16 winter before gradually weakening. The atmospheric temperature is also globally at record warmth. Greenland is melting, releasing large amount fresh cold water. This slows down the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), blocking the ocean circulations (Global Conveyor Belt) and possibly delaying the seasonal movement of warm water from north to south here in Southern California.
There is much energy (and chaos) in the Pacific for 2015, which so far has the highest number of category 4 (130 mph winds) or 5 (160 mph) hurricanes or typhoons in modern history. The last record for these northern hemisphere storms was in 2004 at 18. Typically, we get about 12 of them per year. Because El Nino is here to stay for the winter of 2016, it will serve as a major impetus for more storms. We just had the strongest hurricane on record for the Pacific, Hurricane Patricia.
Before that we also had Hurricane Oho that headed NORTHEAST towards Alaska. The last hurricane that did this (central Pacific to the Northeast) was in 1949 (66 years ago). According to the NHC (National Hurricane Center), this extreme northeastern trajectory of OHO for hurricanes in the Pacific is a first of its kind - ever!
There is much energy (and chaos) in the Pacific for 2015, which so far has the highest number of category 4 (130 mph winds) or 5 (160 mph) hurricanes or typhoons in modern history. The last record for these northern hemisphere storms was in 2004 at 18. Typically, we get about 12 of them per year. Because El Nino is here to stay for the winter of 2016, it will serve as a major impetus for more storms. We just had the strongest hurricane on record for the Pacific, Hurricane Patricia.
Before that we also had Hurricane Oho that headed NORTHEAST towards Alaska. The last hurricane that did this (central Pacific to the Northeast) was in 1949 (66 years ago). According to the NHC (National Hurricane Center), this extreme northeastern trajectory of OHO for hurricanes in the Pacific is a first of its kind - ever!
3
Thank you for this great article and the stunning photographs and graphics. Really beautiful.
Thank you for also drawing attention to the fact that Congressman who deny climate change (global warming) and are trying to prevent funding research we desperately need. The money allocated for specific projects are determined by a highly competitive and rigorous process of scientific peer review. It should remain that way.
People are fond of bashing George W Bush (and I plead guilty on the subject of the Iraq war). However, it should be known he significantly increased the budget for the National Science Foundation during his Presidency. The NSF funds a significant amount of research in the earth sciences and measuring/modeling climate change.
Thank you for also drawing attention to the fact that Congressman who deny climate change (global warming) and are trying to prevent funding research we desperately need. The money allocated for specific projects are determined by a highly competitive and rigorous process of scientific peer review. It should remain that way.
People are fond of bashing George W Bush (and I plead guilty on the subject of the Iraq war). However, it should be known he significantly increased the budget for the National Science Foundation during his Presidency. The NSF funds a significant amount of research in the earth sciences and measuring/modeling climate change.
5
“Human activities generate only about 3% of CO2 emissions. Most of the rest come from rotting plants.” Guess what? Fossil fuels are fossilized rotting plants!
There are many natural climate cycles and there is also now human caused climate change. These are not mutually exclusive. The worry among climate scientists is that CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere by human activities will tip the balance toward natural processes that will then add much more methane and CO2 to the atmosphere and oceans, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect.
There is a clear correlation between “greenhouse” conditions on earth and much higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Human civilization developed during an interglacial period after an Ice Age, with both CO2 levels and global temperatures much lower than in “greenhouse” conditions in the remote past (millions of years ago). While “greenhouse” conditions might sound like fun, human civilization as we have built it won’t transfer well to an earth that feels like a sauna with many of our major cities uninhabitable due to sea level rise, our ability to produce food and have access to clean water limited (no good topsoil on most of that northern land), billions of people on the move, the oceans depleted of fish, etc.
There are many natural climate cycles and there is also now human caused climate change. These are not mutually exclusive. The worry among climate scientists is that CO2 and methane added to the atmosphere by human activities will tip the balance toward natural processes that will then add much more methane and CO2 to the atmosphere and oceans, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect.
There is a clear correlation between “greenhouse” conditions on earth and much higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Human civilization developed during an interglacial period after an Ice Age, with both CO2 levels and global temperatures much lower than in “greenhouse” conditions in the remote past (millions of years ago). While “greenhouse” conditions might sound like fun, human civilization as we have built it won’t transfer well to an earth that feels like a sauna with many of our major cities uninhabitable due to sea level rise, our ability to produce food and have access to clean water limited (no good topsoil on most of that northern land), billions of people on the move, the oceans depleted of fish, etc.
5
If you google earth this area you will get an image from July 2012. Coordinates are: 67° 3'1.29"N and 49° 1'14.08"W. You will see in that earlier Google Earth image that the ice appears to be significantly LESS than it does in this NY Times article from the same month (July 2015). Can anyone explain this to me? Thank you-Jim in Arizona
1
Can this be--Pleistocene age returns after 10,000 years of ice? What's next, woolly mammoths?
Does Al Gore know this--i.e., Greenland was green once?
The source of new oil fields, perhaps? We can only hope.
Does Al Gore know this--i.e., Greenland was green once?
The source of new oil fields, perhaps? We can only hope.
3
This study doesn't address the "why", moreso "what" is actually occurring. Arguing about whether it's man made or natural does a disservice to the work that needs to be done. What we must do is center our attention on this phenomenon so we understand what's occurring, on our plant, that may affect our generation and many to come. Personally, I like to err on the side of caution.
Climate warming is one of those unpleasant and irritating irreversible processes that can wreak havoc if left to proceed on its own.
It's better to do something now than wait until the warming is self-evident even to hard-headed deniers. Then it is too late to do anything meaningful to stop the warming.
To read about American politicians like Lamar Smith makes me wonder what happened to the U.S. that invented the internet and GPS, sent a man to the moon and satellites all over the space and so on.
Anyway, thanks to NYTimes for a brilliant piece of reporting!
It's better to do something now than wait until the warming is self-evident even to hard-headed deniers. Then it is too late to do anything meaningful to stop the warming.
To read about American politicians like Lamar Smith makes me wonder what happened to the U.S. that invented the internet and GPS, sent a man to the moon and satellites all over the space and so on.
Anyway, thanks to NYTimes for a brilliant piece of reporting!
5
Conservatives want you to think that they were responsible for developing those things. But the fact is they have opposed progress through science at every step of the way unless it could be turned into a better bomb.
3
It should be obvious. Three generations of Americans have grown up reciting every day in school that the US is "under God", which only works in mysterious ways, not by cause and effect. A majority of its people believe that God made the planet to be indestructible by humans.
6
Gathering data on climate change as these scientists are doing here is needed to plan for the warming of the earths climate. The Republicans do not want to fund research since they do not believe global warming is real or an issue. Additionally much money is sent their way by the industries causing climate change, oil, coal etc. These industries are threatened by research indicating climate change. However given what is happening to our climate it may be too late to make change to stop the destruction.
3
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/ These are maps of the world's water temperature and anomalies on a weekly basis. Note, Greenland and the anomaly just off shore in blue, then further out offshore in red. Obviously the temps in blue are from the runoff, further out the temps are in red as warm water replaces the sinking colder water.
1
There were about 2 billion people on the planet in 1930, there are over 7 billion now. "we have met the enemy and he is us"
7
From 900 AC to 1100 AD the Glaciers were much smaller than they are now, thus the name Greenland. This melt is not unprecedented in human history. The time of the last melt, is not really known, but geological records estimate it taking between a decade and a century. The current melt has likely been going on for more than a decade, but is speeding up.
2
Greenland was named by a real estate promoter who believed that he had made a bad mistake when he previously named Iceland.
actually scientist know pretty well what's being going on with Greenland's glaciers and the world's climate for hundreds of thousands of years. They've been extracting ice core samples from Greenland's glaciers, a literal "Frozen Time Capsule". You might try Googling it or watching some videos about it.
1
No, Greenland was named Greenland by Eric the Red to persuade other Vikings to go there, despite the fact that the climate was harsher and colder than Iceland, where the Vikings had already settled. It might have been a bit warmer then it had been earlier and was later, but the Vikings that called it Greenland didn't know that. It was a bit of a misleading ad campaign.
You know, $778,000 won't buy one expensive military drone. I know it's still a lot of money, but is sure is a better way to spend it than on some military toy.
3
What have we come to, when science becomes a political football?
When politicians refuse to fund scientific exploration and research, simply because it interferes with their ideology - or, more likely, their campaign contributors' greed.
I almost wish we would self-extinct. We certainly deserve it. Except, to be brought down by morons...
So very angry.
When politicians refuse to fund scientific exploration and research, simply because it interferes with their ideology - or, more likely, their campaign contributors' greed.
I almost wish we would self-extinct. We certainly deserve it. Except, to be brought down by morons...
So very angry.
8
It is remarkable how many climate change deniers there are, some from saying there is no evidence of this, even after seeing the incredible pictures and presentation in this article, and recent article noting that parts of the Middle East may be uninhabitable by year 2100 if temperatures continue to rise. And that 2015 is likely to be the hottest year ever for average temperatures since the 1880s when formal record keeping started.
None of the deniers can account for what happens to billions of tons of CO2 emissions from human activities, from working factories, to automobiles to agriculture, as if it all just magically disappears somehow and has no effect on climate, when researchers have demonstrated since the 19th century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has a warming effect on the atmosphere.
As an aside, I was unable to see all of the pictures and the presentation of this article with Firefox 38, so just updated to version 41 and everything displays beautifully. Thank you NY Times.
None of the deniers can account for what happens to billions of tons of CO2 emissions from human activities, from working factories, to automobiles to agriculture, as if it all just magically disappears somehow and has no effect on climate, when researchers have demonstrated since the 19th century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has a warming effect on the atmosphere.
As an aside, I was unable to see all of the pictures and the presentation of this article with Firefox 38, so just updated to version 41 and everything displays beautifully. Thank you NY Times.
8
As a veteran of the Greenland ice sheet, I say: thank you, excellent story!
2
I love it when the GOP climate change deniers say, "I can't speak to this because I'm not a scientist," but they are more than thrilled to tell women what kind of medical help they need and don't need, and who should be punished and jailed for dispensing it, even though they are not ob-gyns. Why does anyone listen to them in one case but not the other? Because of Exxon-Mobil-Shell-Koch-Koch-Koch-Koch-Koch billions supporting their political campaigns. The End. Yes, it will be The End for the entire planet.
7
This is truly great news! Greenland is at long last living up to its name. Greenland will hopefully return to its natural earlier state, when early Viking explorers settled. However, the rate of melt remains painfully slow. All scientific endeavors should be used to hasten the ice melt. Industrious people want to relocate, recolonize this pristine area. Be assured, climate change is everyone's friend. Except for the crazy people. Really.
4
Global warming is an existential threat to humanity. While GOP's Luddite philosophy is ridiculous, Democratic and global actions are also probably too little and too late. US and Europe should switch to green energy ASAP and share generously such technology with the emerging economies.
But the main focus should be on space travel and colonization. If pursued with the urgency of the "Manhattan Project", in a century we would be prepared for this and other (cosmic) catastrophes
But the main focus should be on space travel and colonization. If pursued with the urgency of the "Manhattan Project", in a century we would be prepared for this and other (cosmic) catastrophes
4
"The full melting of Greenland’s ice sheet could increase sea levels by about 20 feet." - not evidence to support this - obviously, the question we all must ask is this: what advantage, politically and economically is there for government centric, power hungry, globalization "justice warriors" and religiously environmental activists to continue to claim that climate change is man made and that all instruments of energy production and the global economy be put under their control?
3
There is enormous evidence to support the fact that Greenland has enough ice to raise sea levels 20 feet. It is a very simple volume/mass calculation as the area and depth of the ice is known. It cannot happen quickly due to the physics of ice melting. The fact that the melting has accelerated in recent decades is cause for concern as it, along with sea level rise and melting of Antarctic ice is a proxy for a warming planet.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
So what will all of you alarmists say if these scientists discover that the melting ice is refreezing when it enters the moulin as they suggest is a possible outcome of their research? Why don't we wait and learn what they discover before berating everyone for not turning the lights off?
Well Brian, we will never learn the answer to that if funding is cut off and research stops. But then again, your heroes in congress are arranging all that so conveniently for you, aren't they?
Second, Greenland is not the only place this is happening. But I'm sure you'd also rather not know about what's going on in those places either, would you? As a matter of act, it sounds like you'd rather not let anybody know what's going on in any of those places.
Third, it's not question of if these things are happening or not, but how long it will take for things to get bad. If the water refreezes, then it will just stretch out the time it will take for the ice sheet do disappear entirely. But disappear it will.
Fourth, OF COURSE you may stick your head back in the sand if you want to! The rest of us will know exactly what to do.
Second, Greenland is not the only place this is happening. But I'm sure you'd also rather not know about what's going on in those places either, would you? As a matter of act, it sounds like you'd rather not let anybody know what's going on in any of those places.
Third, it's not question of if these things are happening or not, but how long it will take for things to get bad. If the water refreezes, then it will just stretch out the time it will take for the ice sheet do disappear entirely. But disappear it will.
Fourth, OF COURSE you may stick your head back in the sand if you want to! The rest of us will know exactly what to do.
Burning parts (lumber, coal, fossil fuels) of the earth everyday is not sustainable. The switch to alternative and renewable energy (Solar, wind, etc.) needs to accelerate.
6
"Each year, the federal government spends about $1 billion to support Arctic and Antarctic research by thousands of scientists like Dr. Smith and his team." Now we know the reason for global warming. No threat means no grant. No grant means no job. Note to Dr. Smith: Find a problem or find a new job.
2
Not at all! They could get some nice oil company--like Exxon/Mobil--to pay them to poo-poo global warming just like tobacco companies back in the early 60s did for scientists willing to sell their souls to "prove" that smoking wasn't detrimental to human health. Do you imagine that all research should be conducted on a pro bono basis?
Greenland is occupied by people and animals when it is warm and covered by ice when temps drop. Earth goes through warm and cold cycles.
One of the sermons the Times loves to preach is the late TX governor's quip that Poppy Bush was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple. Liberals show up during a warming period and think thet we're ll goimg to die.
Did we all die 10,000 years ago?
This immature approach to climate science simply ignores the warming and cooling cycle. We happen to bo in a warming period now but liberals want the cycle to stop. They insist that all of mankind is in peril, yet another indicator that liberalism is still in the caveman stage of science comprehension.
Liberalism's fascist rule on never admitting that a fertilized egg is a new person fits with this preschool comprehension of science.
Sorry, but devotion to a political party never equates as knowledge.
One of the sermons the Times loves to preach is the late TX governor's quip that Poppy Bush was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple. Liberals show up during a warming period and think thet we're ll goimg to die.
Did we all die 10,000 years ago?
This immature approach to climate science simply ignores the warming and cooling cycle. We happen to bo in a warming period now but liberals want the cycle to stop. They insist that all of mankind is in peril, yet another indicator that liberalism is still in the caveman stage of science comprehension.
Liberalism's fascist rule on never admitting that a fertilized egg is a new person fits with this preschool comprehension of science.
Sorry, but devotion to a political party never equates as knowledge.
3
"Liberalism is still in the caveman stage of science comprehension."
That’s adorable.
I don’t even want to imagine where that puts the conservatives, who still mistake the exact kind of rhetoric you’re using here for actual scientific discussion and understanding.
I love how cons still think that “the climate has always changed!!!!” is some sort of “gotcha” to climate scientists. In reality, most of our knowledge of how the climate has changed in the past is down to the research of those very climate scientists. They’re well aware of previous climate trends—which is why the current changes worry them so much.
I know it’s much easier to pretend that all those silly liberals and climate scientists (but I repeat myself) are completely ignoring the past, but that’s not actually the case. You haven’t actually pointed out the elephant in the room—rather, you’ve pointed out something that everybody is already well aware of and patted yourself on the back for being so clever and non-conformist. Meanwhile, you've completely missed the actual conversation going on.
If you want to be taken seriously, at some point you’re probably going to actually want to face reality rather than putting your fingers in your ears and shouting the same long debunked canards.
That’s adorable.
I don’t even want to imagine where that puts the conservatives, who still mistake the exact kind of rhetoric you’re using here for actual scientific discussion and understanding.
I love how cons still think that “the climate has always changed!!!!” is some sort of “gotcha” to climate scientists. In reality, most of our knowledge of how the climate has changed in the past is down to the research of those very climate scientists. They’re well aware of previous climate trends—which is why the current changes worry them so much.
I know it’s much easier to pretend that all those silly liberals and climate scientists (but I repeat myself) are completely ignoring the past, but that’s not actually the case. You haven’t actually pointed out the elephant in the room—rather, you’ve pointed out something that everybody is already well aware of and patted yourself on the back for being so clever and non-conformist. Meanwhile, you've completely missed the actual conversation going on.
If you want to be taken seriously, at some point you’re probably going to actually want to face reality rather than putting your fingers in your ears and shouting the same long debunked canards.
4
An irrational hatred of liberals only proves that you need more help than can be had over a morning cup of coffee. As a matter of fact, you probably need a prescription to deal with it.
Seriously.
Seriously.
1
does gw cause abortion ?
When corporations start planning trade routes across the Arctic and nations start claiming swaths of the Arctic Ocean as their territory, climate change is real. The climate change deniers are usually profit-driven and somewhat nationalistic, but this cognitive dissonance doesn't appear to sway them.
The science clearly points to climate change being caused -- or at least influenced -- by human activity, but no matter where on the political spectrum a politician falls and no matter the belief that informs his or her decision-making, the fact remains that climate change is happening. It's a fact.
I would have thought conservative politicians would be interested in learning more so they could enact programs to protect our citizens from an imminent threat. To have a pro-life stance -- and to be consistently pro-life -- means not just focusing obsessively on wombs, but also ending the death penalty.
And funding climate change study.
The science clearly points to climate change being caused -- or at least influenced -- by human activity, but no matter where on the political spectrum a politician falls and no matter the belief that informs his or her decision-making, the fact remains that climate change is happening. It's a fact.
I would have thought conservative politicians would be interested in learning more so they could enact programs to protect our citizens from an imminent threat. To have a pro-life stance -- and to be consistently pro-life -- means not just focusing obsessively on wombs, but also ending the death penalty.
And funding climate change study.
4
While we're talking about excess heat and global warming, can someone estimate for us the warming effect of going from 2 billion on the planet in the early 20th century, to over 7 billion people now?
4
Looking at all the other news on the NYTimes, like issues in the South China Sea and the dysfunction in our political system, it's sad that all that in the end won't matter as global warming will put these "dramas" into perspective as self-inflicted, man-made and ultimately pointless compared to the loss of our beautiful planet.
3
Glad to see that Greenland will once again be green. Mother nature will return the land to grazing and farming. Love it.
3
Some areas will benefit and some will lose.
How many Floridians can migrate to Greenland?
How many Floridians can migrate to Greenland?
7
Money - individuals' money, corporate money, taxpayer money - is already being spent in large quantities on mitigating the effects of climate change. So, the climate change deniers have "lost" - in that climate change is happening and we all are already spending money on it. But it's also too late to stop it, even were it solely the product of human activity. So there really is a (sad) way forward: research now will go forward as mitigation rather than causation, except for the dollars designated for investigating whether any near-term changes in human use of fossil fuels will contribute to mitigation. Conservatives will probably oppose that as well, but in fact it is already happening. Are conservatives ready to eliminate spending for beach replenishment, barriers, dune restoration, infrastructure hardening, homeowner buyout programs, etc.? If that is the case and conservatives are ready to withdraw from the shore, let them say so and tell their constituents (and their business supporters) to make their own preparations. I've come to the conclusion that only a gradual, voluntary, and continued decline in population will help this situation.
2
Those of us who are getting older have a lot fewer years ahead of us than our children, or our children's children. We won't be affected, but they will.
Every time I read an article like this, with incontrovertible evidence, I simply have to ask myself: don't folks like Jim Inhofe--heck, even the Kochs, for Lord's sake--think or care about their children?
The graphic introducing the article, showing running streams is an amazing depiction of what's happening right now, as I type these lines. It's more than amazing--it's downright eerie, that a world phenomenon occurring right beneath our noses is so easily dismissed by the very people who have the power to make changes, before it's too late. From this piece, however, I fear it's too late and no amount of conservation now can bring us back from the tipping point seen in Greenland.
Every time I read an article like this, with incontrovertible evidence, I simply have to ask myself: don't folks like Jim Inhofe--heck, even the Kochs, for Lord's sake--think or care about their children?
The graphic introducing the article, showing running streams is an amazing depiction of what's happening right now, as I type these lines. It's more than amazing--it's downright eerie, that a world phenomenon occurring right beneath our noses is so easily dismissed by the very people who have the power to make changes, before it's too late. From this piece, however, I fear it's too late and no amount of conservation now can bring us back from the tipping point seen in Greenland.
10
First, we are all getting older. Second, using the word irrefutable doesn't add substance to your argument. Third, what makes you think that a reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted will make the planet stop warming? What irrefutable proof do you have that reducing CO2 emissions will reduce warming -- none.
@wondering: What proof do you have that reducing CO2 emmissions WON'T reduce global warming? At least I'm saying that I trust the 97% of climate change scientists who are publishing today, presenting their theories about the cause and cure for global warming. Please tell me your sources.
1
The GOP is always out there seeking ignorance wherever they can find it, yet while their "leaders" are looking to block knowledge about climate change their state suffers through worsening series of droughts and floods. Exactly whom are these "leaders" representing.
7
So we're going to repeat the medieval warming period, which was also caused by human beings?
2
No, we are not repeating anything.
7
What Ashley said. This is all new.
1
This isn't an easy topic - you can't categorize people as deniers or alarmists, and you can't just say "Greenland is melting faster than normal." We know that systems are nonlinear and that cause and effect are extremely difficult to tease apart. I have written a primer on climate science I hope people will read:
www.climatecurious.com
So far, 8,000 people have read it. Come learn more and decide for yourself.
www.climatecurious.com
So far, 8,000 people have read it. Come learn more and decide for yourself.
1
Thanks for not overtly blaming fossil fuels, coal or carbon dioxide. Maybe this is happening, but it is certainly not caused by human use of fossil fuels.
CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.
The notion of fossil fuels-caused climate change is a false premise for regulation.
1. CO2 does not materially affect the Earth’s climate;
2. Nature already effectively captures and sequesters CO2 as mineral carbonate;
3. Climate cycles are natural, and caused by forces other than CO2;
4. The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 years;
5. Human activities generate only about 3% of CO2 emissions. Most of the rest come from rotting plants.
Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. You can make magnesium carbonate in your kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia. For more detail see the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad, or http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/ .
CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.
The notion of fossil fuels-caused climate change is a false premise for regulation.
1. CO2 does not materially affect the Earth’s climate;
2. Nature already effectively captures and sequesters CO2 as mineral carbonate;
3. Climate cycles are natural, and caused by forces other than CO2;
4. The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 years;
5. Human activities generate only about 3% of CO2 emissions. Most of the rest come from rotting plants.
Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. You can make magnesium carbonate in your kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia. For more detail see the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad, or http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/ .
3
1.) CO2 does materially affect Earth's climate. Look up how absorption and emission of light works.
2.) Nature cannot keep up with human production of Nitrogen and CO2
3.) Climate cycles occur over thousands of years, these changes are from decades of change.
4.) Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of between 50 - 200 years
5.) We're at 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere right now. There's no denying that the Earth has never seen that before, and humans are certainly a large part of it, because nature does not change CO2 emissions that much, starting around 1960s.
2.) Nature cannot keep up with human production of Nitrogen and CO2
3.) Climate cycles occur over thousands of years, these changes are from decades of change.
4.) Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of between 50 - 200 years
5.) We're at 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere right now. There's no denying that the Earth has never seen that before, and humans are certainly a large part of it, because nature does not change CO2 emissions that much, starting around 1960s.
2
All of your bogus theories and conclusions have been debunked long ago.
Oh you and your pesky facts! Stop it!
Although I can hardly tolerate the idea that there are people who still deny the scientific consensus on climate change, what bothers me most is that those who want to de-fund research and study.
The logical conclusion is that the defunding viewpoint is 100% ideologically motivated, but generously assuming it might not be, then consider this: it is very hard to believe that an intelligent and impartial observer would say that they are 100% certain that the climate is not changing due to human activity. So I ask: at what point will this person decide that something should be done despite the chance that it might be wasted effort?
I can’t imagine that any honest person doesn’t believe that there is at least a 10% chance that there is real, human caused climate change going on that could have the consequence of raising the sea level by 10 to 20 feet in this century (let alone more complex and more dire scenarios). So the question I would put to such a person is: don’t you think that a consequence that would drown hundreds of thousands of square miles of highly populated areas including many of the world’s major cities is sufficiently serious that something should be done to prevent it even if the chance it was necessary was 10%?
Put another way, if the chances of your child being molested if you let him walk to school by himself are even 1%, wouldn’t you walk to school with him every day? Why would you not take similar precautions with your planet?
The logical conclusion is that the defunding viewpoint is 100% ideologically motivated, but generously assuming it might not be, then consider this: it is very hard to believe that an intelligent and impartial observer would say that they are 100% certain that the climate is not changing due to human activity. So I ask: at what point will this person decide that something should be done despite the chance that it might be wasted effort?
I can’t imagine that any honest person doesn’t believe that there is at least a 10% chance that there is real, human caused climate change going on that could have the consequence of raising the sea level by 10 to 20 feet in this century (let alone more complex and more dire scenarios). So the question I would put to such a person is: don’t you think that a consequence that would drown hundreds of thousands of square miles of highly populated areas including many of the world’s major cities is sufficiently serious that something should be done to prevent it even if the chance it was necessary was 10%?
Put another way, if the chances of your child being molested if you let him walk to school by himself are even 1%, wouldn’t you walk to school with him every day? Why would you not take similar precautions with your planet?
3
So tell us, has the "scientific consensus" ever been wrong about anything else?
I've lived in Norfolk, Va my entire life and have been hearing, since ~1975, that global warming will increase sea levels and cause flooding in the worlds littorals. So, for the past 40 years, scientists have predicted Norfolk, Miami, New York, Singapore, etc etc will be under water. Still hasn't happened.
I am not denying climate change -- it's real. But will someone tell me when 75% of the Earth population that lives on or near the coastlines should move inland?
I am not denying climate change -- it's real. But will someone tell me when 75% of the Earth population that lives on or near the coastlines should move inland?
1
Probably no worries during your lifetime, except for spring tides and full moons.
2
Visit miami high tide, main street flood now. Really no change? Sorry yr wrong.
1
You could start making plans now. The East coast, especially Florida, started experiencing two years ago more "nuisance flooding" days than they have in their entire history. I recently read that Annapolis is having the same problem for the first time ever.
I wouldn't put it off.
I wouldn't put it off.
“That’s 3,000 taxpayer dollars, going down the hole,” Dr. Smith said.
"That's 3,000,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars, going down the hole!" Dick Cheney said.
Don't worry Dr. Smith, this is a very legitimate purpose! Also, phenomenal graphics.
"That's 3,000,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars, going down the hole!" Dick Cheney said.
Don't worry Dr. Smith, this is a very legitimate purpose! Also, phenomenal graphics.
7
Meh - I'm sort of confused by this... I ran a marathon there a few years back and the locals were talking about how thin the front edge of the glacier has become... this was the first time I ever really started to think that human-induced global warming was distinguishable from the fact that 10,000 years ago there was a two-mile thick sheet of ice over Manhattan (meaning that we've been warming for a long while with no human cause).
As I started to feel sad for my children, the local then added: "Yeah, the weird thing is how much the glacier is growing on the other side - like it is ruining fishing grounds and has forced a whole village to move".
So now I'm as confused as I was when I finished reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.
As I started to feel sad for my children, the local then added: "Yeah, the weird thing is how much the glacier is growing on the other side - like it is ruining fishing grounds and has forced a whole village to move".
So now I'm as confused as I was when I finished reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.
2
There seems to be developing hard evidence that Earth was hit by 3 to 4 large pieces of a comet or comets that caused runaway global warming and flooding (source of ancient flood myths and tales), approx. 9,000-11,000 years ago.
As these objects hit ice and/or water, they didn't leave much in the way of obvious impact craters, etc.
As these objects hit ice and/or water, they didn't leave much in the way of obvious impact craters, etc.
There's a lot of fresh water locked away in the ice sheets and we will all regret letting it go to waste when there are 10 billion people on earth and barely enough water to go around.
1
That could happen as soon as 2045 (U.N. estimate of population, not water supply).
Denial of human-induced climate change, and the concomitant hardship and devastation it will increasingly visit upon millions of the poorest peoples of the world, ought to be considered a crime against humanity.
6
What an emotional piece of propaganda. UN and US should spend that money on a more useful research. Tomorrow these rivers will freeze, and Greenland will have more ice than these Global Warmest's will know what to do with,. Of course that news will go largely unreported, and people will continue the false belief that Greenland is still melting.
2
"Tomorrow these rivers will freeze.." That "tomorrow" may be thousands or millions of years in the future. There may not be any "news" organizations at that time.
1
The melting of the ice sheets in Antarctica is likely to be far more important because as the Greenland ice covering melts the island has been rising out of the sea with the weight of ice removed, and if that magma is coming from under oceans it is not going to have the same impact for Greenland's ice to melt fully as for Antarctica's to melt. The difference is Greenland is an island, while Antarctica is a continent.
The missing link in the research on the impact of global warming is looking at the Earth as a body of liquid, with a crust covering just part of the liquid. Even that crust is mobile due to plate tectonics.
The missing link in the research on the impact of global warming is looking at the Earth as a body of liquid, with a crust covering just part of the liquid. Even that crust is mobile due to plate tectonics.
I'm surprised the Kochs didn't shoot down this drone.
6
Actually, it would probably be more likely the Kochs would sell the drones and get a tax subsidy...then complain about it.
This is something that makes little sense to me. We pay thousands of American athletes millions of dollars a year to do things like hit balls over fences and punch each other in the face. One athlete in fact, boxer Floyd Mayweather, made $300 million last year.
But these guys, who appear to be risking their lives to save human civilization, are stuck scrimping on their snack food budget.
All the while, the entire federal budget for Arctic and Antarctic research is $1 billion, or just three times Floyd Mayweather's yearly income. (And Mayweather doesn't even knock anybody out!)
But these guys, who appear to be risking their lives to save human civilization, are stuck scrimping on their snack food budget.
All the while, the entire federal budget for Arctic and Antarctic research is $1 billion, or just three times Floyd Mayweather's yearly income. (And Mayweather doesn't even knock anybody out!)
11
Wow. Stunning interactive piece. Well done by all involved with this article. Who knew the end of the world could be so beautiful? I hope for the least amount of suffering possible at this point.
2
Great integration of information, video & graphics. Well done NYT.
1
Yes, this is a considerable sum of money to explore the possibility/probability of a rise in the ocean level. Compared to what it would cost to move millions and millions of people from the coastal areas likeliest to be affected, it is - excuse the expression - a mere drop in the ocean. Naysayers obviously prefer sand - they've sure got their heads stuck in it.
1
While this is both terrifying and concerning, I want to commend the Times for a state-of-the-art presentation. Arresting visuals - both video and interactive graphics - supported this galvanizing story. It was gripping - both for myself, and for my students.
Bravo!
Bravo!
3
Think the exodus from Syria has been problematic? Just wait until we have to relocate thousands of times as many people in a hurry. This is something our children and their children WILL have to deal with. A certain amount of sea level rise is already unavoidable. (Oh, and more intense weather events. And collapsing fish populations. And... oh, forget it, what's on Netflix?)
7
This is one of the finest pieces of journalism to come out in a long time. It shows what can be done with Internet technology to bring a story that is informing, educational and visually stunning.
6
James Balog's documentary Chasing Ice was a truly impactful eye opener for me on this topic. His personal account as well as this article are important pieces to alarm people like me - a member of society who is not a scientist, who is not experiencing this data first-hand and who cannot foresee these longterm effects on our earth other than what is dictated to me by news and media.
That being said, what is the proper output to informing society on topics such as this? And how can we better educate each and everyone one of us to play a significant enough role towards a larger outcome to sustain and preserve our planet? It surely can't only be up to those only preforming fieldwork?
That being said, what is the proper output to informing society on topics such as this? And how can we better educate each and everyone one of us to play a significant enough role towards a larger outcome to sustain and preserve our planet? It surely can't only be up to those only preforming fieldwork?
2
Rep. Lamar Smith is an enemy of humanity.
Also, the graphics on this article are awesome.
Also, the graphics on this article are awesome.
1
th worst case end point of gw is th extinction of humanity
th problem w that is what, exactly ?
it would end th problem of gw once and for all
th problem w that is what, exactly ?
it would end th problem of gw once and for all
The planet will shrug us off and in a couple of million years all evidence of us will be gone.
Perhaps it did not occur to you, but your maps with their impressive in and out zooming feature undercut the drama of your absolutely wonderful photos. For the map shows that, however dramatic and lovely all that flowing water looks, when seen from the larger perspective of the entire continent the problem (if it is a problem) is infinitesimally small. This scale illusion often appears in global warming alarmist p.r. Graphs showing one degree temperature rises over a century or more against a left vertical of maybe two degrees. When average daily temperatures can fluctuate one HUNDRED degrees over the course of a single year. Scale, in other words, can make what is trivial appear significant, and those flowing rivers sure do seem significant. I recommend taking out the map of the entire continent though. It undercuts the fear and the thrill of catastrophe you are hoping to foment.
3
had th dinosaurs possessed th technology to deflect that asteroid, they might still be grazing shallow wetlands, and we might still be encased in a creature th size of a tree shrew, scurrying in-between th legs of 100 ton lizards
life is subject to infinite departure into unimaginable forms and shapes
just as a whim of nature set h stage for th rise of mammals, and us, what wondrous creatures might stalk th landscape after were gone
and anyway, i have not noticed all that much worth saving in th human race
life is subject to infinite departure into unimaginable forms and shapes
just as a whim of nature set h stage for th rise of mammals, and us, what wondrous creatures might stalk th landscape after were gone
and anyway, i have not noticed all that much worth saving in th human race
1
OMG Ice melts in the Greenland summer. Quick impose, totalitarian Carbonism! Its a crisis!!!! RUN!
2
So you quip out some flip observation, I've heard this type ofclimate response many times....I'm curious as to what drives you and others to disparage climate science. Science is science is science...all scientific reasoning works pretty much the same.
Today in Paris the temperature was 21°C (69.8°F). Now is that normal??
I went outside this morning and found frost on my window. It was not there yesterday morning. I went inside all panicked and told my wife it was colder today. She calmed me down and pointed out it was late October. She is such a denier.
While we can worry and try to figure out a way to stop the warming, I think another aspect has to be considered. This run-off of 95,000 gal per minute - it that for the entire ice sheet or just the one moulin they measured? IF that figure is only for one, the end result is we are completing losing a massive volume of pure water to the salinity of the seas. With the current rapidly declining sources of pure water in the world, we should consider for the time being collecting this water for transport and use where it is most needed around the world. That would result in two benefits for the immediate future: providing the water for use and cutting down on the elevations of the seas - a benefit to all while we work on repairing the damaging pollution stimulating this loss. This is a win-win for all sides. Where are the creative scientists to assess this aspect?
It's a pity and downright scary that those who are in power are controlled by dollars to become puppets of a selfish agenda. We are doomed by our shortsightedness and dogmatic love of capitalism.
3
great article, very informative, excellent use of visuals. As a teacher I would
definitely use this in my classroom.
definitely use this in my classroom.
2
As the ice melts on Greenland, it dumps the water into the North sea. It is fresh water which greatly dilutes the salt content in that part of the ocean. This in turn has a ripple effect that will be felt around the world, and particularly in Europe. The ocean currents that circle the globe are slowing and slowly disappearing as a result if this. This process has been going on for some time now and has been rigorously studied by the scientist from Japan. Big deal you say. Who cares. Well, we all should care. The gulf stream that runs up the east cost the the United States is part of the world's ocean current. The gulf stream has a flow fate that is ten times that of the largest river on the planet - the great Amazon. The warm temperatures of the Golf Stream are picked up by the trade winds and carried across the Atlantic to Europe. These warm trade winds are the very reason that the Emerald Isle is green. They are the very reason why humans have flourished in Europe for the last 5,000 years. Without these warm trade winds, winters would be too long and the summers too short to grow food in Europe! That's why we all should care.
4
I'm curious to know why fresh water from the melting ice causes the gulf stream to be threatened to the point of disappearing? Fresh water in the North sea certainly would dilute the salt content of that sea but how does that impact the currents and the trade winds? Being from the Emerald Isle caught my attention.
For citizens of the world, what will happen over a period of Time is often eclipsed by crises within their own lives that are clearly caused by the Economic and Political conditions facing them daily.
A great many people have no interest in any kind of Science and that is a terrible pity because without action to stop what damages we can, we can only guess what kind of lives our descendents will have, or have not.
A great many people have no interest in any kind of Science and that is a terrible pity because without action to stop what damages we can, we can only guess what kind of lives our descendents will have, or have not.
1
Come on - take a page from the book of American Conservatism: if you deny a problem exists, then it goes away and you don't have to worry about it or take any action. Problem solved.
1
I remember many years ago reading about the effects the melting ice would have on the Atlantic circulation. Among other catastrophic consequences, It is predicted that Western Europe may actually experience a cooling effect. This is really a human experiment on a global scale. See below article which can provide some background.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/29/melt...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/29/melt...
2
Knowledge is one thing. Human behavior is another. It's a well-known fact that if we humans find the knowledge "inconvenient" (thank you Mr. Gore) then we'll ignore it. The lovely electric cars we see at the charging stations are receiving 80% of their power from non-renewable sources. Their cars may not emit exhaust, but that coal-fired plant sure does. The planet is where it is because of billions of human decisions. Blaming global warming on the Republicans is easier than looking in the mirror, but woefully ineffective. Was it yesterday that an exhaustive study put the blame on the beef industry for being a major contributor to climate change? Will anyone stop buying beef to save Greenland? Anyone?
1
I did (stop buying beef) for this and other reasons. I know many others who have done the same. I'm also working on a move to a location where I won't need a car every day, where I can conduct most of my life locally and use mass transit services for long-distance travel. Unfortunately such situations don't exist here in the US, except in NYC which is way too expensive for me, so I'll be moving out of the country to try this out.
But it is possible to power those batteries with other sources, and in some cases is already being done.
1
Greenland's ice cap also melted in the last interglacial, the Eemian, which began about 130,000 years ago and lasted for maybe 15,000 years. Scandinavia became an island. Immokelee was the Key West of Florida. Oh, and the polar bears survived.
3
The climate has been changing for billions of years. It will continue to change no matter what hysterical politicians and grant-grubbing "scientists" spout. When we have real life-threatening problems in the world it is doubly unfortunate that the NYTimes wastes valuable space on a hoax.
1
Earth has been around for 5 billion years. You alarmists are so self centered.
Temps are NOT rising. Temps are actually getting cooler. Please look at the data yourself. Why does NOAA keep "adjusting" past temps to make it look like it's warmer now? Good question, yes?
And Greenland was once green when there was less carbon emissions in the atmosphere. that little fact alone destroys global warming theories.
Temps are NOT rising. Temps are actually getting cooler. Please look at the data yourself. Why does NOAA keep "adjusting" past temps to make it look like it's warmer now? Good question, yes?
And Greenland was once green when there was less carbon emissions in the atmosphere. that little fact alone destroys global warming theories.
2
Greenland was never green, that was viking marketing propaganda.
1
Penny wise and pound foolish. Pinch some pennies now as you convince others not to believe in this "hoax" perpetrated by the scientific community OR spend billions later to salvage submerged shoreline properties, relocate people and bail out industries destroyed by rising tides. Wouldn't it be more prudent to assume this is happening, take some cautious steps, and then be prepared or surprised when something either does or doesn't happen?
1
The flight of refugees from Syria into Europe provides a glimpse of the flood of internal refugees in the U.S. if the 20-foot rise in sea levels predicted in the event of a Greenland ice sheet meltdown comes to pass--not to mention the potential for disaster when the influx of freshwater from Greenland stalls the Gulf Stream and triggers a new ice age in Europe.
1
The NC Legislature has declared that global warming or climate change does not exist. Who are you going to believe: them or your own eyes?
3
Your statement about what the NC Legislature did isn't even close to being accurate.
From livescience.com- "In 2012, North Carolina passed legislation banning the state from basing coastal policies on the latest predictions of sea level rise, ABC News reported. Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue allowed the bill, known as House Bill 819, to become law by not taking action against it.
The law was a response to a prediction by the state's Coastal Resources Commission that sea levels could rise by 39 inches (99 centimeters) in the next century. The prediction raised fears that home insurance rates would increase and coastal development would slow."
Not one of the "scientific" climate models meets the test of the scientific method as not even one of the correctly predicts what has happened thus far. There's no reason to base policy on predictions that have no basis in reality nor science.
Also, the Governor who allowed this to become law is a Democrat, just FYI.
From livescience.com- "In 2012, North Carolina passed legislation banning the state from basing coastal policies on the latest predictions of sea level rise, ABC News reported. Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue allowed the bill, known as House Bill 819, to become law by not taking action against it.
The law was a response to a prediction by the state's Coastal Resources Commission that sea levels could rise by 39 inches (99 centimeters) in the next century. The prediction raised fears that home insurance rates would increase and coastal development would slow."
Not one of the "scientific" climate models meets the test of the scientific method as not even one of the correctly predicts what has happened thus far. There's no reason to base policy on predictions that have no basis in reality nor science.
Also, the Governor who allowed this to become law is a Democrat, just FYI.
After reading--and looking at the great graphics--I took time to email my (unfortunately) Republican congressman, D. Jolly. Living in a coastal Florida district, I care about investing in basic science projects about sea level change. However, I hope everyone who reads this article takes time to contact district/state elected officials asking them to challenge the chair of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), for his waste of time and money to defund basic science research--especially three year grants for $778,000.
Any more years of Republican control of the House and more countries than Norway (see NYT article) will be using "Texas" as a synonym for crazy.
Any more years of Republican control of the House and more countries than Norway (see NYT article) will be using "Texas" as a synonym for crazy.
7
This goes beyond climate change denying. Whether or not you believe it exists or is caused by greenhouse gases or natural environmental cycles, the fact is "Greenland is melting" and its water is coming to where most people live--the world's coastal areas. A sea rise of 20 feet as predicted will put most major East Coast cities under water. Dikes and pumps may help in the short run, but unless we take all possible precautionary actions including reducing heat-trapping carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, we'll go down on this Titanic together. This is truly a Biblical flood in the making and hiding in a Noah's ark of denial will not change that reality.
1
The climate has been changing ever since the Earth cooled. That's the reason we have five Great Lakes in the Midwest instead of massive glaciers and ice sheets. All that ice melted long before there were any humans or SUVs.
If you want to worry, worry about the plastic pollution in the ocean or deep sea mineral mining or something that could, you know, be the result of actual human behavior.
If you want to worry, worry about the plastic pollution in the ocean or deep sea mineral mining or something that could, you know, be the result of actual human behavior.
"But the research is under increasing fire by some Republican leaders in Congress, who deny or question the scientific consensus that human activities contribute to climate change..."
Is this really going to be humanity's epitaph? We didn't do the research so we could ignore the warnings all to please a few rich regressives bankrolled by the oil and gas industry? Is this really going to be it?
Thanks to the young researchers, NASA, and the New York Times. Stunning and disturbing graphics.
Is this really going to be humanity's epitaph? We didn't do the research so we could ignore the warnings all to please a few rich regressives bankrolled by the oil and gas industry? Is this really going to be it?
Thanks to the young researchers, NASA, and the New York Times. Stunning and disturbing graphics.
3
Incontrovertible proof? Cause and effect trumping correlation? It's not going to happen. While the debate goes on about causation, however, valuable time and energy is dissipated faster than melt rates when it comes to governments taking measures now to ameliorate the inevitable impact of the disasters to come. Some areas will need to be abandoned and thus often unwilling populations will require relocation. Other areas will be deemed worthy of saving and thus require huge capital investments in dikes and other measures. Resource allocation should be taking place now, but that's probably not going to happen either.
18
decades ago th dutch, who have some experience with sea dikes, recognized sea level was rising and their land was subsiding, so they began a 50 yr program to raise their sea dikes 1 meter
they have th money to do this bc they didnt invade iraq
they have th money to do this bc they didnt invade iraq
Nope. People will just die.
Climate change is our most important issue. It affects not just the US, but the world. Not just humans, but all species. And not just the present, but all foreseeable future.
Talk it up among everyone you know. Don't assume that because the NYTimes comment sections are mostly in agreement that consensus is widespread. Forward these articles to family and friends, and ask them to forward them on to people they know. When someone you know expresses appreciation for nature, for autumn trees, for birdsongs, whatever.....express your concerns for species' future. Stay up on climate news (natureworldnews.com is good.) Join activist organizations (like 350.org) and participate. Write your congresspeople. Don't vote for any climate change denier, and do your best to make sure people you know don't either.
If everyone imagined that the fate of life on this planet depended on themselves as individuals, we would make a difference. And in fact it's true. The difference is us.
Talk it up among everyone you know. Don't assume that because the NYTimes comment sections are mostly in agreement that consensus is widespread. Forward these articles to family and friends, and ask them to forward them on to people they know. When someone you know expresses appreciation for nature, for autumn trees, for birdsongs, whatever.....express your concerns for species' future. Stay up on climate news (natureworldnews.com is good.) Join activist organizations (like 350.org) and participate. Write your congresspeople. Don't vote for any climate change denier, and do your best to make sure people you know don't either.
If everyone imagined that the fate of life on this planet depended on themselves as individuals, we would make a difference. And in fact it's true. The difference is us.
7
life on earth began about 3.5 billion yrs ago
since then it has existed continuously, despite geologic and climatic changes far more dire than th effects of gw
since then it has existed continuously, despite geologic and climatic changes far more dire than th effects of gw
thx1138.......It's a matter of morality and ethics. You don't just sit back and do nothing.
Here where I live, 2015 was the wettest June on record. This fall we've had the driest October on record. 2015 stands to be the warmest global mean temperature on record. 2014 holds the current record. Hurricane Patricia was the strongest hurricane in the Western Hemisphere on record.
That's a lot of records, isn't it? Warming impact is corroborated by biologists all over the world. And I'm seeing the stress on nature locally, particularly large old oaks. Do you respect nature? How many species are you willing to gamble that your opinion is more correct than that of science?
If all who acknowledge climate change were to activate, we could turn around US policies, which could reduce the pace and impact of global warming. Activism is the true spirit of democracy. Or maybe you don't believe in that either?
Here where I live, 2015 was the wettest June on record. This fall we've had the driest October on record. 2015 stands to be the warmest global mean temperature on record. 2014 holds the current record. Hurricane Patricia was the strongest hurricane in the Western Hemisphere on record.
That's a lot of records, isn't it? Warming impact is corroborated by biologists all over the world. And I'm seeing the stress on nature locally, particularly large old oaks. Do you respect nature? How many species are you willing to gamble that your opinion is more correct than that of science?
If all who acknowledge climate change were to activate, we could turn around US policies, which could reduce the pace and impact of global warming. Activism is the true spirit of democracy. Or maybe you don't believe in that either?
1
...and Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
8
I can only imagine a climate science denier seeing this headline and thinking, "Why should I care about Greenland--I'll never go there."
Makes me think, what would it take for a denier to realize that climate change is real? How catastrophic must the loss be for that person to be shaken into action?
Makes me think, what would it take for a denier to realize that climate change is real? How catastrophic must the loss be for that person to be shaken into action?
4
I am a skeptic, as everyone who claims to be scientific in orientation ought be. No, not "a denier" nor any other rhetorical device the gullible choose to call me.
I do not disbelieve because "I don't care about Greenland". It is rather ingenuous to presume that.
I do not disbelieve because "I don't care about Greenland". It is rather ingenuous to presume that.
I can't believe people are still debating climate change, and refusing to see humans' effects on the environment. The comments here reveal that few have much knowledge of the science or taken a comprehensive, global look of what's really happening on our planet.
3
Greenland has been melting for 10,000 years. There may, or may not, be a change in the climate, but the melting is not new. Maybe accelerating, and maybe it has before. If there is global warming, why doesn't the temperature rise?
It is and has been rising. The sad part is that the implied adherence to reason that you and so many of your kind put forth (i.e. I'll believe it, if only someone can show me data ) is utterly insincere.
You're immune to evidence.
You're immune to evidence.
Is it possible to regularly read the news and not know that the temperature is rising? Last month was the warmest September on record for the planet. 2014 appears to be the hottest year on record globally, but 2015 is on track to surpass it. The 10 warmest years have all occurred after 1998. Temperature records around the world are being broken on a regular basis. Storms are getting stronger. The data is all there. www.ncdc.noaa.gov is one of many good places to start, if you are truly interested.
Most rational people accept that the earth is warming and that humans are causing the most rapid increase ever measured or deduced. The questions are not if the earth is warming or even if humans are causing it, but rather: What are the impacts of that warming? (hint, they are bad for most people, but there will be winners) and What can be done about it without dramatically affecting the standard of living for everyone?
2
The prize is not whether the Greenland glacier is melting faster than geologic cyclic warming periods, it's what humans will do about it. Slowing the rate of melting would be the most logical approach until we can move some people living in the coastal shores more inland. Develop more weather models since weather forecasting will have to be re-modeled. Learn from the consequences of human induced global warming and initiate plans now. It will costs us trillions if we implement plans once the water has risen. We see it now, we need to construct infrastructure, models and plans to meet this challenge. We need to use our technological power and the fact we are capable to fund scientists to investigate and provide the necessary information to our leaders. This is why voting for leaders who have plans and not their own agendas is critical.
21
Look at Europe's ability to deal with the influx of several thousand Syrians and Africans and you see how our ability to deal with resettling millions of people is going to happen.
One more resource on Lamar Smith's malfeasance:
http://tinyurl.com/opsjkot
(from https://tamino.wordpress.com for tinyurl avoiders)
"Lamar Smith’s continued attack on science will undermine the science leadership we’ve worked so hard to get here in the U.S. When individual scientists, and our most respected scientific organizations, are subject to harrassment and attack, the best and brightest will go elsewhere. Jobs will go elsewhere. Innovation will happen elsewhere.
"But the worst is that climate change is real and is already costing billions of dollars, right here in the U.S. Did global warming cause hurricane Sandy? No. Did sea level rise make the flooding from hurricane Sandy worse, make it cost billions more than it would have? Yes. Did global warming cause the horrific wildfires in the west this year? No. Did it make them much worse, make them cost billions more to fight, make the damages billions more? Yes. Lamar Smith’s attack denial of climate change — that’s what’s really going to put millions of Americans out of work and cost the U.S. economy billions, maybe even trillions of dollars.
"That’s what Lamar Smith has condemned us to. And the cost, in terms of dollars and of lives, will mainly hit the poor, vulnerable families who already struggle to find employment and pay their bills.
"When science tells us the truth and Lamar Smith doesn’t like it, he denies the science, or attacks the science, or both."
http://tinyurl.com/opsjkot
(from https://tamino.wordpress.com for tinyurl avoiders)
"Lamar Smith’s continued attack on science will undermine the science leadership we’ve worked so hard to get here in the U.S. When individual scientists, and our most respected scientific organizations, are subject to harrassment and attack, the best and brightest will go elsewhere. Jobs will go elsewhere. Innovation will happen elsewhere.
"But the worst is that climate change is real and is already costing billions of dollars, right here in the U.S. Did global warming cause hurricane Sandy? No. Did sea level rise make the flooding from hurricane Sandy worse, make it cost billions more than it would have? Yes. Did global warming cause the horrific wildfires in the west this year? No. Did it make them much worse, make them cost billions more to fight, make the damages billions more? Yes. Lamar Smith’s attack denial of climate change — that’s what’s really going to put millions of Americans out of work and cost the U.S. economy billions, maybe even trillions of dollars.
"That’s what Lamar Smith has condemned us to. And the cost, in terms of dollars and of lives, will mainly hit the poor, vulnerable families who already struggle to find employment and pay their bills.
"When science tells us the truth and Lamar Smith doesn’t like it, he denies the science, or attacks the science, or both."
8
Why are climate doubters afraid of research? Do they imagine it would be cheaper to just wait and do nothing IF Florida ends up totally covered by ocean? Or if some coastal cities slowly disappear?
Think how cheap it would be if we went back to believing the earth is flat. We could save a LOT on space travel.
The right wing need to deny reality is frightening! The knee-jerk reaction of cutting off research may save money in the short run. But such shortsightedness is just one more proof that republicans have gone round the bend and constitute a civic danger if not an apocalyptic one.
Think how cheap it would be if we went back to believing the earth is flat. We could save a LOT on space travel.
The right wing need to deny reality is frightening! The knee-jerk reaction of cutting off research may save money in the short run. But such shortsightedness is just one more proof that republicans have gone round the bend and constitute a civic danger if not an apocalyptic one.
7
When all of Greenland has melted, sea level will increase by 20 feet. It is worth knowing if it will take 1000 years or 100 years or 10. The concesus is that we are past the point of no return with Greenland regardless of the causes of the warming.
Among serious scientists it is simply down to building better models to predict the speed at which things will happen.
Among serious scientists it is simply down to building better models to predict the speed at which things will happen.
3
Bravo NYT. You continue to lead the line in responsible reporting in this country (on most issues).
2
This is excellent work. Thank you.
6
I think we mean NOAA here not NASA guys....
2
A brief history of American Big Business:
1) 1940-2000: Tobacco industry denies its products kill people. Results: over the decades 10's of millions die.
2) 1980-Present: Sugar Industry denies its products cause obesity and cardiovascular disease. Results: today 10's of millions suffer from diabetes and related illnesses.
3) 1990-Present: Fossil fuel industry denies CO2 is the cause of rapid global warming. Result: billions globally face weather and food disasters.
What do 1, 2, and 3 have in common? All three industries were well aware their products were life threatening but put profits ahead of billions of people. As for politicians like Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House science committee, his behavior is morally and utterly bankrupt.
1) 1940-2000: Tobacco industry denies its products kill people. Results: over the decades 10's of millions die.
2) 1980-Present: Sugar Industry denies its products cause obesity and cardiovascular disease. Results: today 10's of millions suffer from diabetes and related illnesses.
3) 1990-Present: Fossil fuel industry denies CO2 is the cause of rapid global warming. Result: billions globally face weather and food disasters.
What do 1, 2, and 3 have in common? All three industries were well aware their products were life threatening but put profits ahead of billions of people. As for politicians like Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House science committee, his behavior is morally and utterly bankrupt.
12
This is an important piece to help our continuing understanding of the drastic changes our planet is undergoing. It also highlights the high risks and danger that are involved in the science of this study; perhaps this can begin to dispel the notion that some have that there is a cadre of scientists holed up in a room mashing computer keyboards to fictitiously undermine US economic interests.
I only fear that these bold scientists' efforts may ultimately be for naught. While it is clear (to most) that human-induced climate change is indeed upon us, there is an entrenched political faction in the United States that seems intent on quibbling over the cause. The cause, in the end, is irrelevant. The fact remains that world governments are doing embarrassingly little to prepare for the changes ahead, whatever the cause.
And I hope, before it's too late, that we don't miss the trees for the forest (to invert the common expression), that our focus on climate change causes us to overlook the daily environmental disasters: habitat loss, polluted waterways, species loss, etc.
Let us heed the warning of the canary before our lust for more gets us too deep in the mine to escape.
I only fear that these bold scientists' efforts may ultimately be for naught. While it is clear (to most) that human-induced climate change is indeed upon us, there is an entrenched political faction in the United States that seems intent on quibbling over the cause. The cause, in the end, is irrelevant. The fact remains that world governments are doing embarrassingly little to prepare for the changes ahead, whatever the cause.
And I hope, before it's too late, that we don't miss the trees for the forest (to invert the common expression), that our focus on climate change causes us to overlook the daily environmental disasters: habitat loss, polluted waterways, species loss, etc.
Let us heed the warning of the canary before our lust for more gets us too deep in the mine to escape.
34
"The cause, in the end, is irrelevant." REALLY? So how much power should individuals cede to governments and governments cede to Global Authorities? The cause is relevant if one is asking for great sacrifice towards a remedy aimed at a specific cause!
At this point it doesn't matter whether climate change is being caused by human activity. What matters is what humans can do to stop the flood.
I suspect that most people won't be bothered by this. They will see this as another opportunity of an "extreme sports kayak trip" to nowhere.
1
an inconvenient truth: ice cores show that during the Medieval Warm Period (about 1000 years ago), Greenland was at least as warm as, or warmer than, present-day temperatures... presumably, that warming was also manmade (caused by Vikings burning potatoes and bacon)
http://www.thegwpf.com/greenland-warmer-1000-years-ago/
http://www.thegwpf.com/greenland-warmer-1000-years-ago/
4
Oh, for heaven's sake. The GWPF is UK's Global Warming Policy Foundation, a biased unskeptical outlet for denial of climate science and political advocacy.
Try this:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
Try this:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
5
Greenland ice core data shows that each of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods exceeded anything since and reflect The Little Ice Age too (though the core resolution does not zoom into these last several decades) even so one can easily see in Dr. Alleys ice cores, just how much hotter Greenland was in those various times, and, how the trend line is heading towards cold, not warm, over thousands of years and presently.
Data from Dr. Alley:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0147e2d17582970b-pi
The same can be seen on the opposite pole in those ice cores:
Data from NOAA/NCDC Taylor:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb07ddce01970d-pi
Data from Dr. Alley:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0147e2d17582970b-pi
The same can be seen on the opposite pole in those ice cores:
Data from NOAA/NCDC Taylor:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb07ddce01970d-pi
1
Your sense of humor aside, do you honestly believe that changes in the earth's climate which clearly do impact human migration, industrialization, agricultural activity, economic output, prosperity, security, and overall quality of life should be considered trivial by individuals, businesses, and governments? If you do I advise you to go talk to your local farmer, Alaskan native peoples living in coastal regions, inhabitants of Greenland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Siberia, or anyone living on islands in the world's vast oceans. The planet's climate IS changing and always will change, and responding too that change, instead of pretending it doesn't exist, makes good sense for everyone living on this earth regardless of why the change is happening and your level of understanding around it.
2
Want to learn more about Lamar Smith's anti-science 'leadership' on the US House of Representatives' Science Committee?
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-c...
Frightening, isn't it? Why are we allowing these people to run our country and our world into oblivion?
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-c...
Frightening, isn't it? Why are we allowing these people to run our country and our world into oblivion?
6
Maybe it would be better to say -- Greenland is returning. There is a reason it was called Greenland, after all.
1
"There is a reason it was called Greenland, after all." It was named that to attract immigrants, but it was ice then as well. We are doomed... left to argue with those whose understanding of the world fits on a bumper sticker.
1
Surreal. We are doing a better job of documenting climate change than addressing it.
4
This is NOT abnormal. Why do you think the country is call GREENland!
2
It was called Greenland as part of a deliberately misleading ad campaign by Eric the Red to get other Vikings to go there - small settlements lasted less than 300 years after the climate turned colder, but glad to know that his ad campaign is still working!
And although the climate in Greenland turned briefly warmer during the Middle Ages due to natural causes and was much warmer 50 million years ago than today, this does not mean climate change is good for modern human civilization. Barring serious action, by the end of this century disruption caused by water and food shortages caused by a changing climate will fuel resource wars and massive migration, sea level rise will make major cities and coastlines uninhabitable, heat waves will become lethal, tropical diseases will spread further around the world, an acidifying ocean will be unable to sustain much beyond jellyfish, etc. etc. But it’s all fun and games until then.
And although the climate in Greenland turned briefly warmer during the Middle Ages due to natural causes and was much warmer 50 million years ago than today, this does not mean climate change is good for modern human civilization. Barring serious action, by the end of this century disruption caused by water and food shortages caused by a changing climate will fuel resource wars and massive migration, sea level rise will make major cities and coastlines uninhabitable, heat waves will become lethal, tropical diseases will spread further around the world, an acidifying ocean will be unable to sustain much beyond jellyfish, etc. etc. But it’s all fun and games until then.
It was called Greenland as part of a deliberately misleading ad campaign by Eric the Red to get other Vikings to go there - small settlements lasted less than 300 years after the climate turned colder again, but glad to know that his ad campaign is still working!
Nope. It's always been mostly covered in ice. Called Greenland as part of a ploy by Eric the Red to get Vikings to got there with him.
Unfortunately, there is very little that Americans can do. The vast majority of the worlds pollution comes from Asia. It is over populated, and they have virtually zero regulations on factory emissions etc. Until the major leaders of China, Indonesia, etc. choose to change, there's little that can be done.
1
The US is the second biggest polluter on the planet, and per capita, the worst offender. Of course there are things that canabe done to ameliorate climate change.
I'm wondering. At which point does the naked greed and bought politics enrage the US voters? Whether it is the medieval social policies or the corrupt fiscal policies, the US congress no longer represents US voters. Do we get angry? Do we vote them out of office? And if so, aren't we just voting in somebody who is vetted by the same corrupt system of short term economic gain for a few? When do Americans get fed up? Will it all result in revolution? Or will we just wallow along to our own doom in a soft autocracy, with digital entertainment substituting for Huxley's mind-numbing soma in "Brave New World?"
4
.....a billion dollars to establish that ice melts....
2
Wonderful use of graphics and video. Both needed to deal with the immensity of the reporting task and the seriousness of the issue.
4
Conspicuously missing from this propaganda is that these rivers have existed in Greenland for thousands of years.
1
Not as many, because it hasn't been as warm. But by all means, stick with blind denial and willful ignorance, seems to work for some people.
3
They haven't existed for thousands of years. Up until recently the summer ice-melt only pooled on the surface without cutting channels.
3
One of the great curiosities about denialist thinking is this: They will accept climatologists' word that "these rivers have existed in Greenland for thousands of years," but are unwilling to believe their expertise about what is happening now.
Strange logic.
Strange logic.
6
I am not even a scientist and I know what happens to ice in the summer time but apparently these people don't or at least are not aware that we just finished summer in the northern hemisphere. I mean everyone knows that that ice melts in the summer time. We have experience with that every year even as far down south from Greenland as where I am in Kansas. But hey props to the NY Times on their scare tactics.
1
I don't care about the article; however, the video is beautiful to say the least.
Excellent presentation/article. Well written and great site design! It really gave me some of the spirit of the work involved (it helps that my office is freezing right now!) Thanks for the knowlege about this work.
Expert use of new web design techniques, complementary and non obtrusive. It gave this article a feeling more like a documentary.
Kudos!
Expert use of new web design techniques, complementary and non obtrusive. It gave this article a feeling more like a documentary.
Kudos!
4
Do you remember how the Arctic was supposed to be so melted that all the ships from the Far East would cross right through it in the summer?
Did you hear anymore about it? Photos?
Of course not. It was instead frozen stiff, for many summers now...
Unlike the 1940's when it was open to navigation without ice breakers.
It was alarmism.
It's the same with Greenland. Archeological remains and chronicles show that it had 300 Viking farms which could cultivate enough hay and grain to survive over winter for thousands.
Nothing like that is even remotely possible today, showing that it is much colder now. Yet the alarmism over each and every summer melt never stops.
I have nothing whatsoever against having ALL believers in such things give their last $100k for climate mitigation if they think that that CAN make the Greenland climate a tad harsher.
Just don't use any public money or impose any mandate to the public in the process.
Use a discrete collection basket.
Did you hear anymore about it? Photos?
Of course not. It was instead frozen stiff, for many summers now...
Unlike the 1940's when it was open to navigation without ice breakers.
It was alarmism.
It's the same with Greenland. Archeological remains and chronicles show that it had 300 Viking farms which could cultivate enough hay and grain to survive over winter for thousands.
Nothing like that is even remotely possible today, showing that it is much colder now. Yet the alarmism over each and every summer melt never stops.
I have nothing whatsoever against having ALL believers in such things give their last $100k for climate mitigation if they think that that CAN make the Greenland climate a tad harsher.
Just don't use any public money or impose any mandate to the public in the process.
Use a discrete collection basket.
2
I am not worried about it. Mankind will ignore what is going on. We will continue to make babies that will be raised in a consumptive socio-economic world.
The systems that feed us will break down, massive social disruptions will erupt as people fight for food and air conditioning, social order will break down, and then major wars will happen in response to it all.
Assuming that all humans do not die off, once the radiation settles down, the cycle will happen all over again in 20,000 years.
Earth Abides.
The systems that feed us will break down, massive social disruptions will erupt as people fight for food and air conditioning, social order will break down, and then major wars will happen in response to it all.
Assuming that all humans do not die off, once the radiation settles down, the cycle will happen all over again in 20,000 years.
Earth Abides.
1
Articles like this and some of the comments (e.g. see ''John from Texas'' below) drive home the obvious, that evil like the Koch Family and the organizations they spawn are intent on 'monetizing water' the way they have lived off resources like petroleum for years.
The Far Right opposes foreign aid unless it's about oil. And they call 'climate change' a 'hoax.' But the 'hoax is on us,' if we allow them the right time of day. Wall Street has been speculating about trading in water futures for several years. Venture speculators like Charles Allen, Co., were looking into water decades ago. The biggest 'ice cube' in the world - Greenland - is now melting, and so is the 'continent of ice' - Antarctica.
Thank you NASA and the NY Times for showing those of us not inclined to fly there what it looks like and what it portends. Not very nice things.
Meanwhile ask yourself why big oil and Holocaust denier right wing groups always pay better for professional liars to work on their behalf than we provide to those who tell the truth, and why the fringe right get apoplexy on the subject of climate change. Why are they always interested in cutting scientific research on the public's behalf as unnecessary, while the annual amount spent on oil exploration alone in 2013 was close to $16 Billion dollars. ''Oh that's private industry money.'' Says the oil troll - that's a lie - it's 100% deductible - that's how 'oil exploration is encouraged.'
The clock is ticking.
The Far Right opposes foreign aid unless it's about oil. And they call 'climate change' a 'hoax.' But the 'hoax is on us,' if we allow them the right time of day. Wall Street has been speculating about trading in water futures for several years. Venture speculators like Charles Allen, Co., were looking into water decades ago. The biggest 'ice cube' in the world - Greenland - is now melting, and so is the 'continent of ice' - Antarctica.
Thank you NASA and the NY Times for showing those of us not inclined to fly there what it looks like and what it portends. Not very nice things.
Meanwhile ask yourself why big oil and Holocaust denier right wing groups always pay better for professional liars to work on their behalf than we provide to those who tell the truth, and why the fringe right get apoplexy on the subject of climate change. Why are they always interested in cutting scientific research on the public's behalf as unnecessary, while the annual amount spent on oil exploration alone in 2013 was close to $16 Billion dollars. ''Oh that's private industry money.'' Says the oil troll - that's a lie - it's 100% deductible - that's how 'oil exploration is encouraged.'
The clock is ticking.
9
Way to go NYT, promoting hypocrisy & censorship. Only allowing comments that are indulgent & misguided instead of deservedly critical, that is part of science too. This article only exposes & illustrates the obvious, snow & ice melt during the summer. Go there during the winter. Beside that, how many people have expressed air travel & else that emit pollution or cause other environmental & socio-economic issues? Yet insincere & misinformed about their own contributions while blaming others or not regarding local conditions among their own community, city, county, & state?
Don't get it twisted. Republicans are not "questioning" science.
Questioning science is a good thing. New technologies come out, new evidence is found, new questions arise, old theories are tested, and new theories are formed.
That is how science is supposed to work. You question what you know in order to learn more about it.
That is not what Republicans are doing.
Republicans are disregarding science.
They see mountains of physical evidence produced by world-class specialists and just say nope, not true.
Big difference.
Questioning science is a good thing. New technologies come out, new evidence is found, new questions arise, old theories are tested, and new theories are formed.
That is how science is supposed to work. You question what you know in order to learn more about it.
That is not what Republicans are doing.
Republicans are disregarding science.
They see mountains of physical evidence produced by world-class specialists and just say nope, not true.
Big difference.
12
Do not misconstrue this piece. It is a demonstration of how hardworking scientists are, and how cheap (yes cheap) research can be relative to its benefit. The reason why Lamar Hunt wants to defund these efforts is (1) the oil and natural gas industry in Texas and (2) because research has very little concrete benefit, and rarely anything tangible. Most people do not realize 99+% of modern technology exists because of government funded research.
One thing missing from this article is that doctoral students such as Mr. Overstreet very often work 50-70 hours a week but get paid between $15,000 and $30,000 a year, with the low end far more common than the high end. As a doctoral candidate, I effectively made $10/hr. On the other hand, some Universities and colleges hire lecturers with only master's degrees who make about twice as much annually but only teach. These researchers are doing it because they are truth seekers.
One of the charges from those denying climate change is that the scientists are being alarmist to garner greater funding. But it makes no sense to enter research as a career path, which is driven entirely by the passion on display in this article, get paid next to nothing, and then make baseless claims. Why would two whole generations of climate scientists want to study nothing but their own fabrications or exaggerations? They're certainly not in it for the money.
One thing missing from this article is that doctoral students such as Mr. Overstreet very often work 50-70 hours a week but get paid between $15,000 and $30,000 a year, with the low end far more common than the high end. As a doctoral candidate, I effectively made $10/hr. On the other hand, some Universities and colleges hire lecturers with only master's degrees who make about twice as much annually but only teach. These researchers are doing it because they are truth seekers.
One of the charges from those denying climate change is that the scientists are being alarmist to garner greater funding. But it makes no sense to enter research as a career path, which is driven entirely by the passion on display in this article, get paid next to nothing, and then make baseless claims. Why would two whole generations of climate scientists want to study nothing but their own fabrications or exaggerations? They're certainly not in it for the money.
11
Around the turn of this century my late scientist friend from Iceland, Dr. Gudmundur Arason would often say that Greenland should have been more correctly named Iceland because it is mostly covered with ice and largely inhabitable. Iceland could have been named something else. Possibly Moonland because of its totally unique landscape that any first time visitor may think of it as a different planet on earth. In fact I was told by Dr. Arasaon that moon landing was practiced in Iceland before actual moon landing launch. Well only a decade and a half later Greenland with its large swaths of melting ice and treacherous waters could be more appropriately named Bluewaterland to draw attention to the effects of global warming.
8
the no news is good news approach is a lot a cheaper - albeit in the short run, say the length of a senator's attention span
2
Has anyone done the geometry on this statement - "The full melting of Greenland’s ice sheet could increase sea levels by about 20 feet."
I doubt it from a volume perspective.
I doubt it from a volume perspective.
It is simple math. Twenty feet is about right. It is 200 feet for Antartica. Each would likely be accompanied by additional rising due to thermal expansion of warmer oceans.
Greenland ice sheet is 1700 miles long, averages about 1.2 miles thick and is 660000 square miles in area. The volume of ice is then about 0.8 million cubic miles. The earth's oceans cover about 139 million square miles. Dividing 0.8 by 139, gets 0.0057 miles or 30 feet. So I would say 20 feet might be on the small side.
Greenland ice sheet is 1700 miles long, averages about 1.2 miles thick and is 660000 square miles in area. The volume of ice is then about 0.8 million cubic miles. The earth's oceans cover about 139 million square miles. Dividing 0.8 by 139, gets 0.0057 miles or 30 feet. So I would say 20 feet might be on the small side.
Yes it's been done, the maths, that is. Try again.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
"Together, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth. The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), roughly the area of the contiguous United States and Mexico combined. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice. The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers (656,000 square miles), covering most of the island of Greenland, three times the size of Texas."
more at link
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
"Together, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth. The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), roughly the area of the contiguous United States and Mexico combined. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice. The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers (656,000 square miles), covering most of the island of Greenland, three times the size of Texas."
more at link
1
Mark's feminist half
Beautiful awe inspiring photos. Enjoyed that very much, with some reminders of increasing number of the rivers formed in the ravines created by ice sheets receding or melting. Much of it is already known, though research is needed for greater accuracy.
There is no doubt that the Northern hemispheres is probably going to face the maximum rise in sea level, and coastal areas are going to be seriously inundated and under water. Florida was twice its current size 15,000 years ago.
While I appreciate the research, and the gadgets necessary for such an inquiry-centered adventure, Congress has a responsibility to know where tax payers money goes, why it goes where it does...and would there a less costly approach to do the same research. That's the job of Congress. Congress that does not ask those questions is one that is not doing its duty. And Congress that takes away money from important futuristic research that can save mankind is being short sighted. It is about balance...and good government tries to achieve that.
The aerial video is excellent. Look forward to the results on knowing if NY city is going to be under water in 20 years or 50. If it is going to go under in five feet of water or 50 feet.
Beautiful awe inspiring photos. Enjoyed that very much, with some reminders of increasing number of the rivers formed in the ravines created by ice sheets receding or melting. Much of it is already known, though research is needed for greater accuracy.
There is no doubt that the Northern hemispheres is probably going to face the maximum rise in sea level, and coastal areas are going to be seriously inundated and under water. Florida was twice its current size 15,000 years ago.
While I appreciate the research, and the gadgets necessary for such an inquiry-centered adventure, Congress has a responsibility to know where tax payers money goes, why it goes where it does...and would there a less costly approach to do the same research. That's the job of Congress. Congress that does not ask those questions is one that is not doing its duty. And Congress that takes away money from important futuristic research that can save mankind is being short sighted. It is about balance...and good government tries to achieve that.
The aerial video is excellent. Look forward to the results on knowing if NY city is going to be under water in 20 years or 50. If it is going to go under in five feet of water or 50 feet.
1
Tibet is melting away, too. I saw the Dram Valley carrying it away...
2
As you may know, Greenland is a territory under the sovereign control of Denmark. What is the Danish government's position on the possible need of migrating their population from the inundated peninsula north of Germany to the green island in the Atlantic?
Completely AWESOME story and presentation!
3
Amazing reporting on the most important issue facing mankind as a whole. Loved the zoom in & out graphics along with the story. Who would believe that such a beautiful scene from natural events could lead the eventual demise of life on our planet. Science is more important than ever in determining the rate of ice melting as well as exponential occurrence of rising sea levels. All of the GOP climate change deniers like Lamar Smith of Texas who want to cut funding for National Science Foundation, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, will be regretful when their ocean front homes or Gulf of Mexico mansions, are demolished by either a tsunami, hurricanes, flash floods, earthquakes or mudslides or their constituents are complaining about the devastation of agriculture due to droughts & dropping water levels caused by climate change. Every big city in the US will eventually be greatly effected as rising sea levels, warming oceans, trapped carbon within the ozone layers, all contribute to cataclysmic weather events & seismic activity as well as forest fires that threaten forests & jungles leading to increased lung diseases in local populations as well as rising diseases as the air becomes increasingly more difficult to breathe. In addition to this superb NYT article, National Geographic devoted its entire Nov issue "Cool It" to climate change.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/special-issue/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/special-issue/
8
Good they got this issue out before Rupert murdoch takes majority control over the venerable National Geographic. I hope they can continue their century plus long efforts to bring the search for truth to the world.
1
Beautiful use of scale, image, and interactivity to set context and enhance our understanding of what's happening.
3
I don't subscribe to a newspaper for unwatchable videos. Many readers don't have high tech devices. That said, climate change has occurred quickly in the recent past. There was Scandinavian type farming in Greenland 1000 years ago. Within 200 years the weather had shifted dramatically so farming ended. Studies show Greenland residents diets quickly changed from farm based animals and grain to fish/sea based after the temperature dropped.
2
first, congratulations to the NY TImes on a report that deftly combines physical fact, science strategy and political gamesmanship.
the comments already posted — a mix of video gawking, denialist scoffing, and science illiteracy — should indicate to the editors how desperate is the need for real information and documentation of global climate change.
yes, when beachfront property prices decline, then it will be a sign that climate change is real and must be taken seriously. by then, however, it will be too late to implement effective remediation policies. starting with: energy conservation.
when people 30 years from now look back on issues of the NY Times today, will they recognize editors who took on the hard challenge of journalism, or just reported what most readers still want to hear?
the comments already posted — a mix of video gawking, denialist scoffing, and science illiteracy — should indicate to the editors how desperate is the need for real information and documentation of global climate change.
yes, when beachfront property prices decline, then it will be a sign that climate change is real and must be taken seriously. by then, however, it will be too late to implement effective remediation policies. starting with: energy conservation.
when people 30 years from now look back on issues of the NY Times today, will they recognize editors who took on the hard challenge of journalism, or just reported what most readers still want to hear?
1
Insurance premiums are skyrocketing for coastal property owners too close to the high tide level.
1
Well, since 40 years ago, the NYT questioned whether the earth was starting to cool, I have limited faith in those types of prognostications.
Why not new tools like drones to study & probe? Faster, cleaner and with less of a 'foot print', no? Best...PJS
Please read the article. There is an extended discussion of drones and batteries, which answers your query. I hope you were actually interested in the information, not in just complaining?
6
It seems unbelievable that someone like Lamar Smith, who chairs the House science committee no less, would slash the money spent trying to understand the impact of global warming on our planet. Of all the deliterious effects of Republican denial and self-deception when it comes to generating, interpreting and acting on scientific data, trying to choke off global warming research is certainly the worst.
6
Awesome article great presentation. Coming from a mountaineering background I've seen the changes in glaciers all over the world. Most do not understand the scope of what is happening. One day the planet will not have the ability to cool itself with this loss complete. Its a pretty exciting time for hydrologists and climate scientists to see this acceleration in their lifetimes albeit with a malevolent undercurrent. Get a few republicans out there on the ice, the Trump thing you guys have going is pretty sad. There will be a lot of granite revealed but probably no one to climb it.
4
Look at the upside...more water in the oceans to support more marine life and more temperate arable areas to support agriculture. Life finds a way to adapt.
Attacking deniers, conservatives, and the GOP may allow you to fool yourself into thinking you command the moral and intellectual high-ground but does little for mankind.
I am a geologist and I know the Earth has been through numerous cycles of sea level rise and fall and heating and cooling before. I am not worried and neither should you.
You can believe what you want but be wary of those who are really pushing the hysteria over this because they are positioning themselves to benefit financially and otherwise.
Attacking deniers, conservatives, and the GOP may allow you to fool yourself into thinking you command the moral and intellectual high-ground but does little for mankind.
I am a geologist and I know the Earth has been through numerous cycles of sea level rise and fall and heating and cooling before. I am not worried and neither should you.
You can believe what you want but be wary of those who are really pushing the hysteria over this because they are positioning themselves to benefit financially and otherwise.
1
Marvelous piece. In spite of its obvious desire to propel us into more wars, the New York Times has retained, through the digital transformation, the ability to do incredible journalism.
3
This is a beautiful landscape of Greenland. That water is so pure I would drink it right from the river. But guess what. This was probably taken video was taken in the Summer when ice melts. Lets go back in February and take the same video. It's called seasons people.
Don't fall for this global warming propaganda. The world is a lot bigger than anyone on it and goes through natural cycles all the time.
Don't fall for this global warming propaganda. The world is a lot bigger than anyone on it and goes through natural cycles all the time.
1
Thank you for that insight. Perhaps, during the preparation for this complex mission, that they overlooked that key piece of logic - that water freezes in winter. However, I trust in the peer review process. No doubt when their paper is published in Nature or some such, other more talented scientists will point out the flaw in their methodology. Forgive me my sarcasm, but why are you so afraid of scientists simply asking questions?
Great article, please keep these amazing pieces of journalism coming NYT! While the images were breathtaking, it was disturbing at the same time to see the sheer volume of water flowing in the ocean every minute of every day. It this doesn't raise awareness, I don't know what will.
4
The "tremendous cost in taxpayer money" of scientific research into AGW and its weather-related phenomena that Texas Republican Congressman Lamar Smith is determined to defund (Texas being part of the realm of Texaco) is equivalent of one 15-minute A-10 "Warthog" airstrike in Iraq or Syria; two wars ignited in no small part by AGW and its weather-related phenomena.
7
Using my tablet, it was impossible to scroll through and read this article. A little less in the way of interactive graphics, please.
1
In American political discourse the contrasting words public and private describing money are rarely used. Instead we have taxpayer money, a word used by one of the researchers. And the political right calls public schools "government schools."
It is now 60 years since John Kenneth Galbraith warned about "growing public squalor in the midst of private affluence," 60 years in which the plutocracy has claimed all.
In consequence, science is apologetic about the minimal amounts of public dollars it receives while tens of billions can flow from the likes of the Kochs to deny science and advance their interests in expanding fossil fuel use.
Those who control the language win. Get rid of the word public and you get rid of the public interest.
Those who control the gold, rule; and those who control the language win: the competition between public and private spaces and spheres is entirely lost by the public through the cynical use of descriptors like "taxpayers" money. Of course it's taxpayers money. NASA was a public venture. The sciences are public. When they get privatized the public loses.
And for the past 60 years the public has been losing everything to the emergent plutocracy and their political hirelings.
It is now 60 years since John Kenneth Galbraith warned about "growing public squalor in the midst of private affluence," 60 years in which the plutocracy has claimed all.
In consequence, science is apologetic about the minimal amounts of public dollars it receives while tens of billions can flow from the likes of the Kochs to deny science and advance their interests in expanding fossil fuel use.
Those who control the language win. Get rid of the word public and you get rid of the public interest.
Those who control the gold, rule; and those who control the language win: the competition between public and private spaces and spheres is entirely lost by the public through the cynical use of descriptors like "taxpayers" money. Of course it's taxpayers money. NASA was a public venture. The sciences are public. When they get privatized the public loses.
And for the past 60 years the public has been losing everything to the emergent plutocracy and their political hirelings.
6
How wonderful that the Kochs can witness their dream come true during their lifetimes. They give new meaning to "a purpose driven life".
4
Not sure why you would blame the Koch brothers. They are as much to blame, if being rich and an industrialist is the crime as Carnegie, J. P. Morgan, Henry Ford, Warren Buffett, etc. I guess all the environmentalists believe we would all better off if we were living in tee-pees with no electricity or running water. Guess we wasted our time making life better for everyone. Come to think of it if we had stayed primitive we would not have been able to make conditions right for expansion of the world's population by curing disease and expanding the food supply. Boy, if we were still all hunting game for survival PETA would have a field day! And all the ice and snow would still be here (NOT).
A recent Volcanic explosion in Southeast Asia has polluted more in one episode that years of human activity. The cycles of solar activity change climate cycles on earth dramatically over time. But, these are covered up by Climate Radicals planting fear and lies everywhere. It's the end of summer(warmer) on Greenland and soon these liquid rivers will be frozen solid once more.
3
^^^
Does not understand basic science
Does not understand basic science
Among the nations of the world, the U.S. is the only nation where people doubt climate change. And in the U.S., it's only the Republican Party that's confused on the issue. You know, that lunatic group led by Donald Trump and Ben Carson.
6
Yes, Climate change is happening!
Where is the evidence that it is due to CO2 or "warming" or just a natural process that the planet cycles through???
Look at the little ice age period during medieval times!!!!
Where is the evidence that it is due to CO2 or "warming" or just a natural process that the planet cycles through???
Look at the little ice age period during medieval times!!!!
2
Perhaps, when South Florida can only be visited when scuba diving, Bush, Rubio and the rest of the "I'm not a scientist" GOP will finally accept reality, but I wouldn't count on it.
4
As opposed to the "I am a scientist" Democrat?
Democrats, as a rule, don't deny science, or reality in general.
Great article, and i particularly liked the graphics magnified and distance with the mouse wheel. And the floating information windows are well done to.
Thank you.
Thank you.
1
I assume the atmosphere of Mars is too thin to support a standard drone, but wouldn't it be possible to do some sort of hybrid lighter than air (blimp) and steerable drone combo?
The pictures could be awesome....
The pictures could be awesome....
1
Yeah, sure. How many times have we read that (misleading) story before?
3
Government money has corrupted the "science" of global warming. The Obama administration has spend around $100 Billion over the last four years, and they don't pay for anything that doesn't support their narrative.
2
I agree. Those scientists will do anything to maintain their annual five-figure stipends.
I don't know what scares me the most: This article or the Congressional reluctance to do something about it. Based upon evidence all around us there is a need to invest in both scientific research and in the means by which we can protect the future of the next generation.
4
Oh yeah! I remember seeing a PBS special on the disappearance of Greenland's ice a few years ago. Old US WWII aircraft once buried in hundreds of feet of snow and ice emerged, becoming visible so that , restorers could just come, fix or truck them out.
The B-29 Superfortress, burned at the last second, on takeoff-rendering the decades of waiting and work to refit it on the ice, nugatory. That was another PBS special.
It was like watching the passing of that age when all Americans seemed willing ,(if grudgingly at times),to sweat and bleed together to try and put the world back to rights. Watching that old bomber burn was like a stake in the heart.
Nice to see the NY Times has, years late, and after everyone else was aware of it, finally take notice of the disaster draining into the sea between England and the US.
Keep it up and you may get a scoop, one day!
The B-29 Superfortress, burned at the last second, on takeoff-rendering the decades of waiting and work to refit it on the ice, nugatory. That was another PBS special.
It was like watching the passing of that age when all Americans seemed willing ,(if grudgingly at times),to sweat and bleed together to try and put the world back to rights. Watching that old bomber burn was like a stake in the heart.
Nice to see the NY Times has, years late, and after everyone else was aware of it, finally take notice of the disaster draining into the sea between England and the US.
Keep it up and you may get a scoop, one day!
1
I'm surprised at some of the flippant comments about our warming planet. One of the consequences the accelerated melting of Greenland seems to be a change in an ocean current known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Scientists have discovered a "cool spot" in the Atlantic that might have dire consequences for the U.S. (rising ocean levels) and Europe (longer, more severe winters). Meanwhile Greenland continues to lose more than one hundred billion tons of ice every year. Not sure that's something to cheer about.
66
kalix,
This AMOC is a natural feature which has repeated itself over and over, not a new discovery - further - it charts in lockstep with climate, warming and cooling, it is about to go cool as you note. Greenland melt which is normal as shown by the period 1919- mid 1940's was greater, faster, more, stronger, and 1.55C warmer than any time recently.
This AMOC is a natural feature which has repeated itself over and over, not a new discovery - further - it charts in lockstep with climate, warming and cooling, it is about to go cool as you note. Greenland melt which is normal as shown by the period 1919- mid 1940's was greater, faster, more, stronger, and 1.55C warmer than any time recently.
That is the premise of the movie (2004) "The Day After Tomorrow." Pretty alarming to think that in 10 years what we thought was fantasy may be coming true.
1
kalix,
The AMO and AMOC are long-occurring oscillations of natural variation, this is not a new discovery. The cool spot will indeed alter climate just as the warm spot (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) always has and will continue to do.
Look for a continued pause in warming, rising east coast sea level but not west coast sea level, and in general a colder more wintry world. Then after the AMO cool phase is done, look for its warm-phase, just as has been the case for generations.
It was a warm-phase 1976-1998 that has fed the global warming hysteria ... that will all reverse now an in coming years and decades, despite any carbon emitted by humans since the dawn of our use of fuels.
The AMO and AMOC are long-occurring oscillations of natural variation, this is not a new discovery. The cool spot will indeed alter climate just as the warm spot (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) always has and will continue to do.
Look for a continued pause in warming, rising east coast sea level but not west coast sea level, and in general a colder more wintry world. Then after the AMO cool phase is done, look for its warm-phase, just as has been the case for generations.
It was a warm-phase 1976-1998 that has fed the global warming hysteria ... that will all reverse now an in coming years and decades, despite any carbon emitted by humans since the dawn of our use of fuels.
1
As an armature photographer/videographer, allow me to add that along with outstanding storytelling, this was a most effective use of imagery! Shot using a drone, eh?
1
Good. Let it melt, so it will be green again, as it was 1000 years ago.
1
good for the scientists-hard, dangerous work to enhance knowledge. Then we have the right wing nuts in congress, otherwise known as republicans. What do these nuts have against science? And how did texas get so many fools elected? Must have something to do with the voters-and the people who don't bother to vote.
3
The most dangerous people on earth are not killers or rapists of child molesters or even ISIS, they are the miscreants who make up the Republican Party. Morally bankrupt and frothing with rigid, mad-dog ideology, they live in a state of clench-jawed denial, determined to prevent any science that does not bow to their plunder-the-earth-it-is-God's-will sophistry.
Not content to merely destroy America, they are now intent on destroying the planet itself. Unconcerned that their children and grandchildren will live in a world of withering heat, ever more frequent and violent storms and decades long droughts, they refuse to accept the truth; the earth is warming at an increasingly frighting pace and much of it is caused by us.
A recent report predicts that in vast regions of earth the temperatures will rise to as much as 165 degrees F before the end of the century, and will be uninhabitable by either human beings or most animals. If we think the millions of desperate refugees surging through Europe today are a problem, just wait until entire countries are rendered unlivable and their populations swarm toward more tolerable climates. The madness and chaos that descends will be the direct result of Republicans refusal to accept the truth.
Not content to merely destroy America, they are now intent on destroying the planet itself. Unconcerned that their children and grandchildren will live in a world of withering heat, ever more frequent and violent storms and decades long droughts, they refuse to accept the truth; the earth is warming at an increasingly frighting pace and much of it is caused by us.
A recent report predicts that in vast regions of earth the temperatures will rise to as much as 165 degrees F before the end of the century, and will be uninhabitable by either human beings or most animals. If we think the millions of desperate refugees surging through Europe today are a problem, just wait until entire countries are rendered unlivable and their populations swarm toward more tolerable climates. The madness and chaos that descends will be the direct result of Republicans refusal to accept the truth.
12
Of course. Blame the Republican Party. They are responsible for the new coal plant a week in India, China and other developing countries. They are responsible for the places in the world where mothers have seven or more children. I mean, who else can we blame?
1
Tell us how you really feel. Maybe you were just born yesterday, the earth has been warming since the last ice age.
I can't do much about China or India, Joe, but I can do something about the frozen-brain obstinacy of the Anti-Science Republicans that plague my country: VOTE THEM OUT.
8
Thank you so much for the extraordinary graphics and videos that let me see the melting of the Greenland ice sheet with the team of scientists measuring it. Thank you for the fine reporting that explained so well how empirical data is gathered by these scientists, how it informs climate modeling, and how that work is funded and imperiled. Great digital journalism!
6
It is absolutely against Big Finance's economic interests to concede anything about climate change for several reason. From climate tracker dot org - "Unburnable carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets has revealed that fossil fuel reserves already far exceed the carbon budget to avoid global warming of 2°C, but in spite of this, spent $674billion last year to find and develop new potentially stranded assets." - these stranded assets are people's retirements and investment.
If you had that much at stake of course you'd want to keep the party of un-sustainability going. And you'd use all the resources at your disposal (pun intended) to make sure you keep your party going.
The sad thing is we have plenty of LABOR who would like to help mitigate the effects of climate change, you know, EVOLVE our society, but Capital gets taxed less than labor so why work?
If you had that much at stake of course you'd want to keep the party of un-sustainability going. And you'd use all the resources at your disposal (pun intended) to make sure you keep your party going.
The sad thing is we have plenty of LABOR who would like to help mitigate the effects of climate change, you know, EVOLVE our society, but Capital gets taxed less than labor so why work?
4
The multimedia presentation was beautiful. Here in Florida there are still so many people who deny climate change despite the evidence everywhere of increased beach erosion, flooding and rising sea levels. Florida is barely a foot above sea level in many areas and even less in South Florida. At some point denial of climate change is no longer a political issue but a mental health one that at times seems to verge on a mental disorder. I mean to risk future generations and literally your children and grandchildren's livelihood and welfare because of ideology, religious believes or a few dollars it will now cost to slowdown climate change shows some kind disconnect that Is just extreme at worst and negligent at best. It used to be said that Americans would face the future head on and not be frightened by it. Now too many seem to be ostriches. The NYT and others need to keep printing these type of articles.
3
Greenland ice is melting away. But there is and always will be a Greenland. Arctic ice is melting away. And there is no Arctic Antarctic ice is melting away. But there is and will always be an Antarctic. There is no ice in Florida nor Bangladesh. And with rising seas there will be much less of both above the water.
1
Curious how it is in the external environment that Man invariably looks for the mirror against which to see himself. Our species has already been singled out for having entered into its entropic phase...
Is it coincidental that the planet is becoming inhospitable to our species ....when we have done so much harm to it and each other of the great family to which we belonged...?
We have indeed passed the point of no return - the final race for us will be which of us evolves faster. The future of our [and so many other] species ...lies only in overtaking the status quo, a state of mind [or being] that is doomed to extinction...!
Is it coincidental that the planet is becoming inhospitable to our species ....when we have done so much harm to it and each other of the great family to which we belonged...?
We have indeed passed the point of no return - the final race for us will be which of us evolves faster. The future of our [and so many other] species ...lies only in overtaking the status quo, a state of mind [or being] that is doomed to extinction...!
1
It was a little sad to hear the scientist lamenting that his $3000 sensing device would disappear and that taxpayer money would be gone. While I appreciate his careful spending, the cost of flying an F-35 for an hour is about $25,000 and the U.S. military budget this year is over $600 BILLION.
Understanding climate change is extremely valuable to all of us. How short-sighted for congressmen to make military expenditures inviolable and climate study expendable.
Understanding climate change is extremely valuable to all of us. How short-sighted for congressmen to make military expenditures inviolable and climate study expendable.
3
Why no mention of the magma bubble under Greenland? What caused the sink hole? Was it heat from below?
2
REALITY: the climate has been warming since the ice age ended QED
5
Wonderful story, wonderful images.
However, the fact is that Greenland is not melting away. As the ice melts, the land will likely rise, science tells us. Not saying this is a good thing, just that the headline misleads.
However, the fact is that Greenland is not melting away. As the ice melts, the land will likely rise, science tells us. Not saying this is a good thing, just that the headline misleads.
1
You have been misled. Greenland will rise, but the rate matters, and the melt is accelerating. Try again.
The graphics are phenomenal. I started to mouse "down" and found myself "landing" on the ice cap. At first I wanted to fight it then realized what was happening and let myself go for the ride. The article is, of course, crucial information and very important to read. Made much easier by the imaging process. Well done!
1
“The ice sheet is porous, like Swiss cheese,” Dr. Smith said. “We didn’t know that until this year.”
This is a surprising statement - scientists have known for generations that this is exactly how ice sheets behave, based, I might add, on observations made in the U.S. Midwest. Ice sheets melt near their margins; we know this because their edge is defined by where they completely melt away. Ice sheets melt from the top down, because that's where solar radiation hits the ice. The surface meltwater collects into streams, which penetrate to the base of the ice through crevasses, which in turn enlarge to form pipe-like moulins (because the ice sheet is porous, like swiss cheese). The meltwater flows along the base in tunnels, discharging as streams at the margin.
The graphics accompanying this article are stunning, and the data collected will no doubt be interesting. However, to present this as groundbreaking science is a little disingenuous.
As to the title 'Greenland is Melting Away', it is important to understand that the ice sheet has always been melting, and similar meltwater streams have also likely formed on the surface. The important question is whether this melting is balanced by the ongoing accumulation of new snow and ice. This is a very complex question, one that a few days of point observation of well-understood processes will contribute little to answering.
This is a surprising statement - scientists have known for generations that this is exactly how ice sheets behave, based, I might add, on observations made in the U.S. Midwest. Ice sheets melt near their margins; we know this because their edge is defined by where they completely melt away. Ice sheets melt from the top down, because that's where solar radiation hits the ice. The surface meltwater collects into streams, which penetrate to the base of the ice through crevasses, which in turn enlarge to form pipe-like moulins (because the ice sheet is porous, like swiss cheese). The meltwater flows along the base in tunnels, discharging as streams at the margin.
The graphics accompanying this article are stunning, and the data collected will no doubt be interesting. However, to present this as groundbreaking science is a little disingenuous.
As to the title 'Greenland is Melting Away', it is important to understand that the ice sheet has always been melting, and similar meltwater streams have also likely formed on the surface. The important question is whether this melting is balanced by the ongoing accumulation of new snow and ice. This is a very complex question, one that a few days of point observation of well-understood processes will contribute little to answering.
4
Actually, measurements are quite good and more research demands like yours are about doubt and delay, while time is not on our side.
Looking at this animated article, I'm thinking how beautiful and fascinating nature can be as the spectacle of potentially disastrous melting of the planet's ice unfolds. It is frightening that modern humanity can observe and record such earth-changing processes for all to see, yet do essentially nothing, even though we know with near certainty why it's happening but likely do not know the magnitude of the consequences.
1
Newsflash. The world's ice has been melting since that little thing called, THE ICE AGE. It comes, it goes and the cycle goes on. The planet has survived meteors, volcanoes, ice ages, people and whatever it's dealing with now, I promise you, it will continue to survive for millions of years after we have left this Earth. I'm not sure about you, but I've decided to just get on with my life and enjoy it. Cheers!....btw...someone should be bottling that water.
6
No one questions whether Earth will survive climate change. It's the disruption of the many things well-off humans take for granted and impoverished humans need to survive.
If you notice, they are doing this research because climatologists AREN'T SURE about their computer models. Meanwhile, where is the leadership to mitigate this CATASTROPHE? OK, OK... I will step in here. We CAN slow climate change by lowering our carbon footprints. Americans consume the most per capita and our carbon footrpints are a "20" when the world average is "2" (and in Europe it's "10"). REDUCTION is the key! Calfornians drastically reduced water consumption during the drought. WE CAN DO THIS! WE MUST!
4
This is exactly the kind of extreme silliness no one should follow.
The graphics and article were really well done. Great job, Coral Davenport, Josh Haner, Larry Buchanan, and Derek Watkins!
4
Oh the irony here: the drone camera captures the stark beauty of this land, but the changes causing that beauty may well create suffering and misery for the people and animals living elsewhere throughout the world.
2
Other than implementing a 1-child or 2-child policy across the globe, and convincing China and India (and other developing countries) to not only stop building new coal power plants, but to decommission the ones that have already been built, all the talk by American environmentalist and Democrats of what we should be doing to save the world from climate change is a lot of "hot air."
Replacing most coal and natural gas with wind, solar and biomass (no nuclear power, please) is never going to happen. Electric cars replacing gasoline-powered that are plugged into our homes every night (powered by wind and solar?) will always be a niche market.
We should continue to strive (and we are) for more fuel efficient automobiles, and for the transition from coal to natural gas because it's the right thing to do. But it will not stop the melting of Greenland.
Replacing most coal and natural gas with wind, solar and biomass (no nuclear power, please) is never going to happen. Electric cars replacing gasoline-powered that are plugged into our homes every night (powered by wind and solar?) will always be a niche market.
We should continue to strive (and we are) for more fuel efficient automobiles, and for the transition from coal to natural gas because it's the right thing to do. But it will not stop the melting of Greenland.
3
We will wipe the Republicans from the earth and attempt to save our species or we will all perish from the devastation caused by climate change. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.
4
Not gonna happen. The republicans own most of the guns.
A stunning way of presenting this story. The zoomable map, the videos of drone flights over the river, the compelling writing -- it's a beautiful example of multimedia journalism. I don't doubt this was an expensive story to create, but things like this are why I gladly pay to subscribe to the NYT. Congratulations and keep up the good work.
6
Thank you Times for placing this top, front, and center, where it belongs. Now for the article on Senator Lamar Smith and others who won't acknowledge empirical fact. Who incredibly wants to defund climate science that is of the upmost importance regardless of the cause.
Too bad the graphics are not coming through.
Too bad the graphics are not coming through.
2
All we get from one side is either sophistry, at best, or will full ignorance, at worst. Don't these people have children? don't their children have children?
6
Climate change always has winners and losers. Greenland will benefit from a warming climate. Norwegians farming settlements flourished in Greenland for hundreds of years before the onset of the Little Ice Age.
1
While politicos argue about causes, the effects of global warming appear to be increasing toward a tipping point. It took several thousand years for the Bering Sea land bridge era ice caps to melt to present day levels; now it's taking decades! Try drawing a 10 or a 20 foot sea level increase around our maps, and think relocation. Then do that for the rest of the world!
The North Pole is open ocean today! It was under several feet of ice cap in my youth! Witness the high storm surge that hurricane Sandy took into lower Manhattan. Could the President declare an FDR-type Manhattan project or a JFK-type Apollo project and, with his leadership, lead the world into the necessary efforts?
A 20 ft increase in sea levels will change world civilization. Try drawing a 10 ft increase around our coastal map. Most living today will be here to cope with it, hopefully long before
The North Pole is open ocean today! It was under several feet of ice cap in my youth! Witness the high storm surge that hurricane Sandy took into lower Manhattan. Could the President declare an FDR-type Manhattan project or a JFK-type Apollo project and, with his leadership, lead the world into the necessary efforts?
A 20 ft increase in sea levels will change world civilization. Try drawing a 10 ft increase around our coastal map. Most living today will be here to cope with it, hopefully long before
4
"But the research is under increasing fire by some Republican leaders in Congress, who deny or question the scientific consensus that human activities contribute to climate change."
Yet the other day there was an announcement that Congress was going to investigate whether Exxon should be held accountable for concealing research that indicated use of fossil fuels were contributing to climate change.
You can't have it both ways!
Yet the other day there was an announcement that Congress was going to investigate whether Exxon should be held accountable for concealing research that indicated use of fossil fuels were contributing to climate change.
You can't have it both ways!
Drs. Jason Box and Richard Alley are misrepresented in an earlier comment, so it might be important to take an actual look at what they have to say, which is not about how Greenland was warmer a thousand years ago.
Richard Alley:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/richard-alley/
"I hope that this AAAS initiative can move us to the point where we can have a dialogue about the things that really matter. Wisest paths forward, how hard do we work to reduce CO2 emissions, how hard do we work to prepare for the changes that are coming. Those sorts of questions are very big. They’re very important. And having them is a path to getting us towards a brighter future."
"Understanding science is our work. Our consensus is that climate change is happening and the risks are real."
Jason Box:
""For thousands of years," he explained, this spot had been covered by a tall building’s worth of ice and snow. But now, in the past few months, the final traces of that ancient ice had disappeared. “We are likely to be the first human beings to ever stand on this piece of ground,” Box said excitedly.
"It was all a tad melodramatic, perhaps. But Box doesn’t shy away from bold strokes. As he sees it, the general public has been betrayed by the reluctance of climate researchers to speak about the dangers of climate change with sufficient urgency."
http://www.rollingstone.com/greenland-melting
Richard Alley:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/richard-alley/
"I hope that this AAAS initiative can move us to the point where we can have a dialogue about the things that really matter. Wisest paths forward, how hard do we work to reduce CO2 emissions, how hard do we work to prepare for the changes that are coming. Those sorts of questions are very big. They’re very important. And having them is a path to getting us towards a brighter future."
"Understanding science is our work. Our consensus is that climate change is happening and the risks are real."
Jason Box:
""For thousands of years," he explained, this spot had been covered by a tall building’s worth of ice and snow. But now, in the past few months, the final traces of that ancient ice had disappeared. “We are likely to be the first human beings to ever stand on this piece of ground,” Box said excitedly.
"It was all a tad melodramatic, perhaps. But Box doesn’t shy away from bold strokes. As he sees it, the general public has been betrayed by the reluctance of climate researchers to speak about the dangers of climate change with sufficient urgency."
http://www.rollingstone.com/greenland-melting
8
Jason Box , also, said that Greenland is 1.5C COLDER than it was in the 1940's, and, that during the period 1919-1940's Greenland featured smaller glaciers and warmer climate.
Dr. Alley clearly stated that a human result is not yet available in the climate or change of the arctic.
While each man may believe in the AGW thesis, and even ascribe to the failed modeling, they indeed found in their data, exactly what I represented they did.
The data, over the postulations.
Box et al. (2009) that: simply to be in sync with the northern hemisphere pattern, Greenland climate must warm (after year 2007) by 1.0 - 1.5 C. In the years after 2007, and a recent not related finding that Greenland's glaciers were smaller in 1932 (the date of the evidence) but had to get that way, and then grow, to have recently melted.
White (2010) featuring Dr. Alley that (quotes only):
"thus far, human influence [which is claimed by climate-alarmists to be the primary cause of what they refer to as the recent "unprecedented" warming of the globe] does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change."
Dr. Alley clearly stated that a human result is not yet available in the climate or change of the arctic.
While each man may believe in the AGW thesis, and even ascribe to the failed modeling, they indeed found in their data, exactly what I represented they did.
The data, over the postulations.
Box et al. (2009) that: simply to be in sync with the northern hemisphere pattern, Greenland climate must warm (after year 2007) by 1.0 - 1.5 C. In the years after 2007, and a recent not related finding that Greenland's glaciers were smaller in 1932 (the date of the evidence) but had to get that way, and then grow, to have recently melted.
White (2010) featuring Dr. Alley that (quotes only):
"thus far, human influence [which is claimed by climate-alarmists to be the primary cause of what they refer to as the recent "unprecedented" warming of the globe] does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change."
wmar, you have a lot to answer for. Greenland's ice sheet is going down far, far faster than anyone could have imagined just a few short years ago. You can see places where the surface is actually collapsing.
I can't write here what we most of us really think about you and what you do here.
I can't write here what we most of us really think about you and what you do here.
3
It must give this professional grade climate science denier (and unskeptical "skeptic", so look of denial in the dictionary and forget that holocaust nonsense which is a political ploy) great pleasure to provide such plausible sciencey looking material to deceive and distract. Yes, there is a small cadre of mostly non-expert but credentialed people to be cited.
This game is unfortunate for him, his family, us, and the rest of humanity, as it distracts and provides cover for delay in necessary action. But he thinks politics is more important than reality. Time is closing in, this is approaching the level at which it must be named what it is, harmful and evil.
This game is unfortunate for him, his family, us, and the rest of humanity, as it distracts and provides cover for delay in necessary action. But he thinks politics is more important than reality. Time is closing in, this is approaching the level at which it must be named what it is, harmful and evil.
1
As a student of geography, I am truly impressed. This article expertly harnesses technology to illustrate an earth process that has tremendous consequence.
6
Exceptional article. Thank you for bringing this type of immersive reporting to the masses. Sometimes it's hard to find reasons to subscribe to newspapers until one reads an article such as this and the powerful impact on its reader by using technology.
4
They're beautiful rivers! Since there's nothing at all we can do to stop climate change, other than just talk about it, at least we should enjoy the beautiful scenery that will arise from it . . . that and the barren desolation, which in itself is serene compared to the frantic chaos and fighting that would otherwise transpire there thanks to our human nature.
1
Climate change or gun control, the answer is the same: Defund research so the truth won't come out or go after the researchers making their lives miserable. Worked really well with Galileo, because as we all know, the sun revolves around a flat earth at the center of the universe.
6
Just look at these guys, risking their lives for some worldwide liberal conspiracy, what fools... /sarcasm
2
Despite all of the GOP ranting against LGBTQ people (as "crimes against nature" or invoking "religion"), their obfuscations of scientific research are the REAL crime against nature, with second-place in the "crime against nature" sweepstakes taken by the GOP's perverting words into their antonyms.
4
I really enjoyed reading this article with all of the graphics. Scientists must be the most frustrated people on earth as they fight the uphill battle of apathy and ignorance. I consider climate change the greatest challenge of all time. Everything, and I mean everything revolves around nature working for us. Humans are introducing scenarios that have never ever existed before in human history and changes are being witnessed during a persons lifetime. Getting 7 billion people to agree to a community effort to avoid catastrophe is a long way off if ever can happen. Every regional issue we are witness to, whether it be natural or human caused is only the beginning of the disasters we will see in the near future. Stay tuned as we watch the upcoming episodes unfold.
7
Is Greenland really losing ice or is the Danish government lying? It would be such a shame (for the researchers and their funding) if there really wasn't any ice loss. Oh I'm sure more studies (and funds) are desperately needed to clear up this conundrum.
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-ma...
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-ma...
1
What a non-story and what a rotten experience reading it.
First, I tried loading it on my Android phone after seeing the BREAKING NEWS notification. It hung like most Breaking News stories do.
Second, I tried scrolling both on Android and on my PC. Each time my browser encountered the map, I had to zoom all the way on the map to be able to scroll my window past the map to continue reading the article.
Finally, the clickbait headline was, "Greenland is melting away, but how fast? A team of scientists went on a perilous trip to find out." It turns out that the so-called "news" article has no news about the melting speed. The news is that scientists went to Greenland. And took measurements. And lived in tents. I agree with other commenters about the importance of global warming, but this article is all flash and no substance.
First, I tried loading it on my Android phone after seeing the BREAKING NEWS notification. It hung like most Breaking News stories do.
Second, I tried scrolling both on Android and on my PC. Each time my browser encountered the map, I had to zoom all the way on the map to be able to scroll my window past the map to continue reading the article.
Finally, the clickbait headline was, "Greenland is melting away, but how fast? A team of scientists went on a perilous trip to find out." It turns out that the so-called "news" article has no news about the melting speed. The news is that scientists went to Greenland. And took measurements. And lived in tents. I agree with other commenters about the importance of global warming, but this article is all flash and no substance.
4
The story is about the collection of the data to determine the rate of melting. Maybe you better get an iPhone that won't hang.
Beautiful video. Great article.
Most of the public is not aware of the detailed scientific data and info related to ice loss in Greenland, the Arctic Ocean or in the Antarctic. This type of article and video let's you see and feel what is happening in a way the data by itself typically doesn't. Yes, Global warming is real.
But for those interested, Greenland has been losing on average roughly 200 Gigatons (1 Gt =1 billion tons) of ice per year since 2000. See here for details-note Fig 3-3: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
And some readers have wondered why there was warming around 1000 AD, apparently similar to today's warming, and why if such warming occurred do we not conclude that burning fossil fuels isn't really a big concern, because similar warming has occurred naturally in the past.
Scientists are well aware that the earth has warmed and cooled many times over geologic time. The question is, of course, what caused such changes, and are the same causes driving change today. The consensus answer is that the natural causes of climate change cannot explain the warming we are measuring now. Only increased greenhouse gases, emitted by humans, can explain today's warming.
If interested in the causes of the Medieval Warming Anomaly (caused by increased solar radiation, changes in the earth's orbital geometry, and reduced worldwide volcanic activity around 900-1150 AD), see this short clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD16nCsvjqs
Most of the public is not aware of the detailed scientific data and info related to ice loss in Greenland, the Arctic Ocean or in the Antarctic. This type of article and video let's you see and feel what is happening in a way the data by itself typically doesn't. Yes, Global warming is real.
But for those interested, Greenland has been losing on average roughly 200 Gigatons (1 Gt =1 billion tons) of ice per year since 2000. See here for details-note Fig 3-3: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
And some readers have wondered why there was warming around 1000 AD, apparently similar to today's warming, and why if such warming occurred do we not conclude that burning fossil fuels isn't really a big concern, because similar warming has occurred naturally in the past.
Scientists are well aware that the earth has warmed and cooled many times over geologic time. The question is, of course, what caused such changes, and are the same causes driving change today. The consensus answer is that the natural causes of climate change cannot explain the warming we are measuring now. Only increased greenhouse gases, emitted by humans, can explain today's warming.
If interested in the causes of the Medieval Warming Anomaly (caused by increased solar radiation, changes in the earth's orbital geometry, and reduced worldwide volcanic activity around 900-1150 AD), see this short clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD16nCsvjqs
61
Naturally-caused or human-caused, aren't the consequences the problem and therefore the issue should be what to do about it? Perhaps it's a 'blessing' in disguise if it is human-caused so we can learn how to address significant changes, regardless of their source.
"The full melting of Greenland’s ice sheet could increase sea levels by about 20 feet"
How can you tell what is propaganda and alarmism in this politically polarized topic?
When statements such as the one above don't include:
1. The probability of this occurring, which according to IPCC scientific experts is very unlikely.
2. The time frame this would occur in. The same scientific experts state this would take 1000's of years.
So either the handsomely paid experts didn't bother providing this information or the questions weren't asked by the authors of this piece. Either way it is unacceptable from a science journalism viewpoint.
If you want to measure the rate of sea level rise, you don't go look at Greenland's rivers for one spot measurement as a proxy (which is apt to be wildly inaccurate), you measure sea levels. This is already being done in multiple ways including the JASON satellite altimeter that give far better data.
I support lots of research such as this, but I also expect better reporting and more scientific honesty.
How can you tell what is propaganda and alarmism in this politically polarized topic?
When statements such as the one above don't include:
1. The probability of this occurring, which according to IPCC scientific experts is very unlikely.
2. The time frame this would occur in. The same scientific experts state this would take 1000's of years.
So either the handsomely paid experts didn't bother providing this information or the questions weren't asked by the authors of this piece. Either way it is unacceptable from a science journalism viewpoint.
If you want to measure the rate of sea level rise, you don't go look at Greenland's rivers for one spot measurement as a proxy (which is apt to be wildly inaccurate), you measure sea levels. This is already being done in multiple ways including the JASON satellite altimeter that give far better data.
I support lots of research such as this, but I also expect better reporting and more scientific honesty.
2
This is how you get people to pay for digital subscriptions. Instead of whining about how "print is dead" or pumping out thoughtless "viral content", the New York Times is leading the way toward high-quality Web-specific publishing worthy of the reader's time. attention and, ultimately, financial support.
9
"If I stick my head in the sand so I cannot see danger, then there is no observable danger. That becomes my data. My data says there is no problem, so we should stop wasting money on research." Thus our Congress approaches what even the CIA has identified as a national security threat.
At what point do we decide that climate change deniers are themselves a threat to our national security? After we have lost lower Manhattan and south Florida? (And all those countries overseas that some of us do not care about.)
The carbon fuel industry is waging a war on change. The collateral damage is the world's ice. Ice melt becomes the sea. The sea wins.
Welcome to Waterworld.
At what point do we decide that climate change deniers are themselves a threat to our national security? After we have lost lower Manhattan and south Florida? (And all those countries overseas that some of us do not care about.)
The carbon fuel industry is waging a war on change. The collateral damage is the world's ice. Ice melt becomes the sea. The sea wins.
Welcome to Waterworld.
7
Thank God global warming is a hoax! Think how bad this would be if it wasn't.
2
I can't believe that the US Goverment is thinking about cutting the funding for these scientists. If there are real brave souls on this planet, who are actually contributing to the future of humanity, its not smart missiles or guns but research like this which will help us understand the TRUTH. Why are US representatives so afraid of finding what it is? It could be either way. And if indeed human activities have no effect on global climate, I think the scientists would be the first one to breathe a sigh of relief, since they know exactly what kind of situation we're looking at otherwise
4
"Leading the Republican ('climate-denialism') charge on Capitol Hill is Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the chairman of the House science committee, who has sought to cut $300 million from NASA’s budget for earth science and has started an inquiry into some 50 National Science Foundation grants.
On Oct. 13, the committee subpoenaed scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, seeking more than six years of internal deliberations, including “all documents and communications” related to the agency’s measurement of climate change."
--------------
The Republican Party is a clear and present danger to science, information, transparency and the planet's future habitability.
Can you imagine such a reckless disregard for humanity as the willful Republican oppression and persecution of critical science, information and data as is being currently displayed by the Greed Over People and Gas Oil Petroleum party ?
Republican denialism of climate change is a slow-motion crime against all of humanity and an intellectual abortion of American leadership, science and technology.
The Republican Party's culture and of death and greed has never been more transparent.
On Oct. 13, the committee subpoenaed scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, seeking more than six years of internal deliberations, including “all documents and communications” related to the agency’s measurement of climate change."
--------------
The Republican Party is a clear and present danger to science, information, transparency and the planet's future habitability.
Can you imagine such a reckless disregard for humanity as the willful Republican oppression and persecution of critical science, information and data as is being currently displayed by the Greed Over People and Gas Oil Petroleum party ?
Republican denialism of climate change is a slow-motion crime against all of humanity and an intellectual abortion of American leadership, science and technology.
The Republican Party's culture and of death and greed has never been more transparent.
119
Also, Socrates, Smith was named after a Texas pioneer named Lamar who was a slave trader, and favored killing all Indians on sight. These are the kinds of people we are dealing with.
1
This goes beyond climate change denying. Whether or not you believe it exists or is caused by greenhouse gases, the fact is "Greenland is melting" and its water is coming to where most people live--the world's coastal areas. A sea rise of 20 feet as predicted will put most major East Coast cities under water. Dikes and pumps may help in the short run, but unless we take all possible precautionary actions including reducing heat-trapping carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels, we'll go down on this Titanic together. This is truly a Biblical flood in the making and hiding in a Noah's ark of denial will not change that reality.
1
May the work of these brave scientists live on in the memory of future generations — yet to come.
For that to come to pass we need to heed their lessons, preserve the earth or drive ourselves to extinction.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
— Robert Frost http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173527
For that to come to pass we need to heed their lessons, preserve the earth or drive ourselves to extinction.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
— Robert Frost http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173527
9
What the world needs to do is build a pipeline from Greenland to the mideast, southwest USA and other places the water is needed. Its all going into the ocean and being wasted.
What a beautiful article!
2
I think in this debate everyone conflates global warming, the effect of carbon emissions and the extent we can do anything about global warming - they are all different issues but by confusing them it is easy to paint Republicans as flat earthers and Democrats as right thinking saviors of the planet.
There has been far too much politics mixed up with the science and politics and good science don't mix. Financial oversight is Congress's duty and it is appropriate for them to check how our money is spent, and if anyone in Congress thinks any publicly funded scientist is playing politics well let them have a look.
The photographs are marvelous and a dramatic illustration of global warming, but remember Greenland wasn't called Greenland because it was always covered in ice - the real issue is the extent to which this cycle of warming is accelerated by human activities. As to the horrors of the temperature, -27F is not that cold if you are dressed for it - I've spent eight hour stretches in -24F in Manitoba mostly sitting in the snow. The story is dramatic enough without milking the pathos.
There has been far too much politics mixed up with the science and politics and good science don't mix. Financial oversight is Congress's duty and it is appropriate for them to check how our money is spent, and if anyone in Congress thinks any publicly funded scientist is playing politics well let them have a look.
The photographs are marvelous and a dramatic illustration of global warming, but remember Greenland wasn't called Greenland because it was always covered in ice - the real issue is the extent to which this cycle of warming is accelerated by human activities. As to the horrors of the temperature, -27F is not that cold if you are dressed for it - I've spent eight hour stretches in -24F in Manitoba mostly sitting in the snow. The story is dramatic enough without milking the pathos.
3
Greenland is a misnomer, or better yet a promotional gimmick to get others to come and settle. Possibly, when compared to parts of Iceland, parts of Greenland might have been more appealing.
The Vikings who named Greenland lived in its southern region, and naming it GREENland may have been a marketing ploy to get other Vikings to move there.
There is no scientific doubt that our current warming is manmade. And Greenland is not just melting -- the melt rate is accelerating. At these rates, based on the numbers since the last 1990s, all of Greenland's ice will be gone in only 500 years. Sea level will be 24 feet higher.
There is going to come a time when the people of the world will look back in amazement that there was every once a stable sea level.
There is no scientific doubt that our current warming is manmade. And Greenland is not just melting -- the melt rate is accelerating. At these rates, based on the numbers since the last 1990s, all of Greenland's ice will be gone in only 500 years. Sea level will be 24 feet higher.
There is going to come a time when the people of the world will look back in amazement that there was every once a stable sea level.
1
Greenland's brief green interlude was a local phenomenon driven by a northerly fluctuation of the Gulf Stream.
Great reporting. It is absolutely vital that we learn about the dynamic nature of ice sheet melting.
Fifteen to twenty years ago the ice sheets were being modeled as as solid blocks of static ice. The estimates at that time were that it would take thousands of years for the ice sheets to be able to melt. It is only by observing the dynamic nature of the ice that we have come to understand that the ice sheets can melt much more quickly.
Fifteen to twenty years ago the ice sheets were being modeled as as solid blocks of static ice. The estimates at that time were that it would take thousands of years for the ice sheets to be able to melt. It is only by observing the dynamic nature of the ice that we have come to understand that the ice sheets can melt much more quickly.
22
Thanks for the beautiful video; the jury is still out on global warming or whether the globe is actually cooling. Looking at all the literature and the leading scientists it is hard to make heads or tails out of it. I am looking forward if the ice melts of all the benefits as well as archaelogical sites being now visible that were covered....
4
Wow, Nutmeg....enjoy the catastrophic flooding and loss of most coastal cities and the majority of islands around the world.
Most scientists agree that a climate warming catastrophe is headed straight for us - the only hard part seems to be waking up to scientific reality for many people.
Most scientists agree that a climate warming catastrophe is headed straight for us - the only hard part seems to be waking up to scientific reality for many people.
7
No the jury is not still out unless you listen to fx and the right wing nuts in congress, not to mention exxon and the oil and gas industry.
4
The jury of scientists is 97% certain that the Earth is accumulating solar energy rapidly and a plateau of CO2 concentration in the air is nowhere in sight.
3
Recently I traveled to British Columbia and landed via a helicopter on a glacier in the coastal mountains. The view was spectacular but I saw what you see in these photographs - melting and run offs. It seemed the glacier was receding. Somehow millions of years seem to be compressed into a few months. I don't know if man did it but something is happening. I resolved to see them all before it goes away - my travels took me to Antarctica (did not see any effect of climate change but miles to the west of us a big ice broke off and stranded thousands of penguins away from the sea) - Hudson strait(polar bear population was up not down) - A million or so salmon came up to spawn in the rivers of Bella Coola ( Grizzlies had 2 and 3 cubs meaning things were good) - So something is happening but not at the pace or the consistency to convince everyone. But we must do the prudent thing - invest more in research - understand the change and do what we can to prevent it. It is not a right or left of politics thing but just the right thing for us to do. In the meanwhile, take every opportunity to see the magnificent vistas of our earth before it changes. You will not be disappointed. You will be in awe!
50
We're supposed to be moved by your words, but I find them misguided and selfish, and they make me angry. You suggest people "take the opportunity to see the magnificent vistas of our earth before it changes"--the way you have done. And then you add, "You will be in awe!" Please. You act as if the melting of Greenland is a travel opportunity--or even worse, a sort of clarion call for rich people (for only they can do what you suggest) to fly around the world (spewing more carbon along the way, of course) to look at magnificent disappearing vistas and catch glimpses of doomed wildlife.
You dare to write that you "don't know if man did it…" Oh my. How much more evidence do you and your ilk need? How much longer do we have to put up with your sort of attitude--that "I'm-not-a-scientist-I-don't know" resistance to the scientific consensus on AGW? Or if you aren't science literate, do you really think, in plain old commonsensical terms, that human beings spewing CO2 into the air at the rate we do doesn't have an effect on our planet?
Traveling the world while the planet melts is a selfish indulgence. It would be much better for you to take your travel money and give it to political candidates who support action against AGW right now--not after "further research."
You dare to write that you "don't know if man did it…" Oh my. How much more evidence do you and your ilk need? How much longer do we have to put up with your sort of attitude--that "I'm-not-a-scientist-I-don't know" resistance to the scientific consensus on AGW? Or if you aren't science literate, do you really think, in plain old commonsensical terms, that human beings spewing CO2 into the air at the rate we do doesn't have an effect on our planet?
Traveling the world while the planet melts is a selfish indulgence. It would be much better for you to take your travel money and give it to political candidates who support action against AGW right now--not after "further research."
2
Choosing to increase your carbon footprint so you can see the last gasps of glaciers is short sighted and selfish.
Your stories are rather anecdotal as far a Climate Change is concerned. I appreciate that you have taken a great interest in the subject to the extent that you travel to the corners of the globe. But, we have to be careful when prescribing our own experiences to whether or not Climate Change is "real"
I am reminded of many comments here in Oklahoma, something likened to, "Coldest Winter on record...see global warming is nonsense"
I am reminded of many comments here in Oklahoma, something likened to, "Coldest Winter on record...see global warming is nonsense"
Melting away is a bit of a misnomer, isn't it? With ice sheet gone, Greenland may finally live up its name.
3
Last week's alarmist rhetoric had to do with the "largest hurricane ever recorded," which turned out to be nothing. The real damage came not from the storm, but from the tens of thousands of tourists who were scared away from a Mexican vacation. Reminded me of when Bill de Blasio closed the schools and the subway in advance of what alarmist weather people said was a killer storm but turned out to be a dusting. Rather than apologize for these mistakes, the alarmists are now doubling down on Greenland.
Insurance companies are making so much money from people scared by these stories when there hasn't been a hurricane in the United States in ten years. They charge higher premiums and its all profits.
I'll be convinced of Global Warming when the price of beachfront property declines, when a house in the Hamptons, Cape Cod, Miami Beach or California can't find a buyer. As long as beach front property is soaring, I'll assume that those in the know don't believe a word of Global Warming.
Insurance companies are making so much money from people scared by these stories when there hasn't been a hurricane in the United States in ten years. They charge higher premiums and its all profits.
I'll be convinced of Global Warming when the price of beachfront property declines, when a house in the Hamptons, Cape Cod, Miami Beach or California can't find a buyer. As long as beach front property is soaring, I'll assume that those in the know don't believe a word of Global Warming.
4
I wouldn't assume everybody in the Hamptons and Miami Beach to be geniuses. Unfortunately, we pay our celebrity chefs, plastic surgeons and hedge fund managers more than we pay our climatologists. So, maybe just keep an eye on your coastal real estate trends to find out the value of botox and foamy sea urchin amuse bouche. For science news, we better go to the scientists.
Wishing, denial and social irritation will solve this problem. We have to stop living like pigs, frankly.
p.s.
Incidentally, I live one block from the beach in California. I'm pretty sure my kids will live a block closer than me-- but this makes me feel pretty sad. I really love this planet, and I am very sad my kids are not getting their fair share of it.
Wishing, denial and social irritation will solve this problem. We have to stop living like pigs, frankly.
p.s.
Incidentally, I live one block from the beach in California. I'm pretty sure my kids will live a block closer than me-- but this makes me feel pretty sad. I really love this planet, and I am very sad my kids are not getting their fair share of it.
Dear Rick,
Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. The largest hurricane recorded was exactly that, it just died down before making landfall, we got lucky. Just because it's a strong storm that didn't hit us at the peak of its strength does not mean it wasn't a strong storm at all. And we have had hurricanes in the last ten years, and there have been plenty more storms worldwide that did a lot of damage.
Just because something doesn't happen to you personally does not mean it didn't happen. Your post is very reminiscent of the head-in-the-sand Republican blind denial of the truth. Stubborn ignorance is very irritating to me, and so I dearly hope global warming comes around to impact you with extreme prejudice.
Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. The largest hurricane recorded was exactly that, it just died down before making landfall, we got lucky. Just because it's a strong storm that didn't hit us at the peak of its strength does not mean it wasn't a strong storm at all. And we have had hurricanes in the last ten years, and there have been plenty more storms worldwide that did a lot of damage.
Just because something doesn't happen to you personally does not mean it didn't happen. Your post is very reminiscent of the head-in-the-sand Republican blind denial of the truth. Stubborn ignorance is very irritating to me, and so I dearly hope global warming comes around to impact you with extreme prejudice.
It's true that the market is the best indicator of the demand, today, and current buyers won't be around to see sea levels rise. But waiting for beach property prices to decline due to rising sea levels like closing the barn door after the horse bolted. We need to support research and knowledge to understand climate change and future implications, regardless of what is the cause. Budget oversight is ok within reason, but to start to subpoena researchers is beyond crazy. People go for medical check ups to avoid more severe problems down the road. Lets the scientists do their work without political interference.
Mark
Mark
Nearly a million bucks to measure the flow of a river over a period of 72 hours? After which that thin reed of evidence will be used for speculating on all of Greenland's rivers and glacial melt are concerned?
It sounds courageous and important, but it's just meaningless theater.
We already know that Greenland's glaciers have been receding since the Little Ice Age, which sent its few residents scurrying back to the mainland. Before that, during a warm spell (all of this taking place long before industrialization and its CO2 effluence), cows could be raised on its southern reaches.
My question though is, assuming there is coming a massive sea level rise to rival that of the end of the last Ice Age, why does it take a billion dollars to study it? Sea levels rise and land is inundated. Had Miami been built on the coast 15,000 years ago, it would by now be making a great artificial reef for fishes. Move inland. There's your answer.
We don't know and can't know what might happen with sea levels. Nobody in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period could have known or expected the cold that what would follow. But somehow they adapted and adjusted, and without a billion dollars in annual funding from Denmark.
It sounds courageous and important, but it's just meaningless theater.
We already know that Greenland's glaciers have been receding since the Little Ice Age, which sent its few residents scurrying back to the mainland. Before that, during a warm spell (all of this taking place long before industrialization and its CO2 effluence), cows could be raised on its southern reaches.
My question though is, assuming there is coming a massive sea level rise to rival that of the end of the last Ice Age, why does it take a billion dollars to study it? Sea levels rise and land is inundated. Had Miami been built on the coast 15,000 years ago, it would by now be making a great artificial reef for fishes. Move inland. There's your answer.
We don't know and can't know what might happen with sea levels. Nobody in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period could have known or expected the cold that what would follow. But somehow they adapted and adjusted, and without a billion dollars in annual funding from Denmark.
3
What color is the sky in your world?
"Nobody in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period could have known or expected the cold that what would follow. But somehow they adapted and adjusted"
Errr...no. They died or departed and their communities remain abandoned to this day.
Errr...no. They died or departed and their communities remain abandoned to this day.
at the end of each winter they had to carry those cows out of the byre because they were too weak with hunger to walk to the new grass. greenland was only marginally habitable (by europeans; the inuit did fine) until the last century.
I have always been fascinated by the far north. Thank you for the stunning videos that brought me there.
2
So at last that winter is going to be over on Earth and we are going to enjoy a real summer when all snow melts down! Finally we can ware sandals like Romans all year round. Melting ice absorbs heat, so when it is gone then summer temperatures will jump up!
1
Well yes, but the temperatures will kill all humans living near the equator or deserts, and the rising sea levels will flood the majority of human population centers, and in all likelihood half of humanity will die in the span of a couple decades. So it's not going to be all wine and roses.
So glad Lamar Smith wasn't in charge when funding was needed for Columbus or Magellan. After all, the whole world had already been mapped, give or take a couple of continents.
10
This fine presentation demonstrates what real evidence and real science is about. Neither nature nor our planet is political. Trying to prevent information from being collected and presented, and running witchhunts on the people doing the hard work, is about as stupid as it gets. In the end, as with Cuccinelli's attacks on Distinguished Scientist Michael Mann (and Benghazi, and government shutdowns), it will cost the government dearly to pursue its repression and dislike of practical information.
Estimates of sea level rise run a bit less than 2 feet to 6 feet by 2100 (time doesn't stop then) mostly do not include the loss of ice from Greenland, the increasingly vulnerable Antarctic, and glaciers so these measurements are vital.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-wes...
For more information, try the NYTimes sections on the environment over on the right on this page:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/earth/index.html
The military and insurance companies are on board, but our politicians think they can stop it by bloviating and bending the truth.
Of course, each incident can be argued, but what is necessary is to look at the sums, and those sums are staggering, whether it be heat, extreme precipitation events, droughts, wildfires, and the various natural events which are being enhanced by steady rise of energy (heat) in the system.
Estimates of sea level rise run a bit less than 2 feet to 6 feet by 2100 (time doesn't stop then) mostly do not include the loss of ice from Greenland, the increasingly vulnerable Antarctic, and glaciers so these measurements are vital.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-wes...
For more information, try the NYTimes sections on the environment over on the right on this page:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/earth/index.html
The military and insurance companies are on board, but our politicians think they can stop it by bloviating and bending the truth.
Of course, each incident can be argued, but what is necessary is to look at the sums, and those sums are staggering, whether it be heat, extreme precipitation events, droughts, wildfires, and the various natural events which are being enhanced by steady rise of energy (heat) in the system.
22
Thank you for this article. I started reading this as an article about science but it is much more - every science teacher in this country should use this article and the wonderful graphics in the classroom.
Climate change is the most important issue in the country and in the world.
There is only one presidential candidate who knows this and is not afraid to address it out loud - Bernie Sanders.
We must spend less on war and more on research. We do indeed need a revolution in this country is we expect our children and grandchildren to have a place to live.
We spend so much to wage war but the Republicans begrudge every penny allocated for research. I am not bothered by the $3,000 down the river. I am concerned with the obscene amount of my taxes spent on wars that should never have been.
Climate change is the most important issue in the country and in the world.
There is only one presidential candidate who knows this and is not afraid to address it out loud - Bernie Sanders.
We must spend less on war and more on research. We do indeed need a revolution in this country is we expect our children and grandchildren to have a place to live.
We spend so much to wage war but the Republicans begrudge every penny allocated for research. I am not bothered by the $3,000 down the river. I am concerned with the obscene amount of my taxes spent on wars that should never have been.
17
Yes, there is climate change.
There has been climate since the beginning of time on this planet and there will be climate change until the earth will be consumed by the sun sometime in the future.
Sometime in the past Greenland has been ice free and yes, it acts as a frozen water reservoir these days.
But as change is constant the only thing we need to accept is that we will have to adapt to nature's forces.
All the man made CO2 in our atmosphere, even while currently increasing, does not even make up as much as 5% of the natural sources of CO2 make.
While it is a good idea to decrease CO2 production, for reasons of inefficiency of fuel burning, it would be better to find ways of living with the results of climate change that cannot be influenced as there are way too many influences outside our own on the climate of this planet.
Or is there someone who is able to block the influence fluctuations of sun light's intensity due to solar cycles?
There has been climate since the beginning of time on this planet and there will be climate change until the earth will be consumed by the sun sometime in the future.
Sometime in the past Greenland has been ice free and yes, it acts as a frozen water reservoir these days.
But as change is constant the only thing we need to accept is that we will have to adapt to nature's forces.
All the man made CO2 in our atmosphere, even while currently increasing, does not even make up as much as 5% of the natural sources of CO2 make.
While it is a good idea to decrease CO2 production, for reasons of inefficiency of fuel burning, it would be better to find ways of living with the results of climate change that cannot be influenced as there are way too many influences outside our own on the climate of this planet.
Or is there someone who is able to block the influence fluctuations of sun light's intensity due to solar cycles?
1
Apparently, denial is not just a river in Egypt.
2
I wish we(Indians) have an interactive media reporting like nytimes back in india.. this is a good article to educate all of us and our family about what is coming.
2
Hype, diversion, & inconsideration, ... this overblown threat from AGW or CC did not injure, torture, terrorize, thieve, persecute, or threaten me. Terrible injustice, disparity, & corruption are indulged yet no consideration at all.
Things are shaping up for 10 cm (4 inches) of sea level rise along the Massachusetts shoreline over the next decade.
7
Steve,
Global lack of warming but AMO cool phase causes east coast SLR, but I would be shocked if your projections are even remotely correct, look for 4-8 inches by 2100, if warming returns after the AMO would normally abate.
Global lack of warming but AMO cool phase causes east coast SLR, but I would be shocked if your projections are even remotely correct, look for 4-8 inches by 2100, if warming returns after the AMO would normally abate.
These scientists are true heroes, risking their lives for the ultimate benefit of all humanity and for our beautiful planet. And yet they are harassed by elected (!) officials who have no problem giving far more taxpayer dollars to obscenely profitable companies in the defense and pharmaceutical sectors.
Kudos to these researchers, and to the NYT editors for creating such an enlightening multimedia presentation.
Kudos to these researchers, and to the NYT editors for creating such an enlightening multimedia presentation.
9
I'll let Joni Mitchell sing my thoughts out on what we are doing to the earth. She sings what I have felt and feared for years. Those fears have turned grave. As an American who has lived in Austria for decades and changed all my values and the way I lived in NYC I know that we can't heal the earth until every single one of us changes as well. In the future we won't have a planet worth changing for! This is the most important issue in my life now and here they teach kindergarten children and educate them on how to live and care for the beauty of their country. They do!
There's just too many people now
Too little land
Much too much desire
You feel so feeble now
It's so out of hand
Big bombs and barbed wire
We've set our lovely sky
Our lovely sky
On fire!
There's just too many people now
And too little land
Too much rage and desire
It makes you feel so feeble now
It's so out of hand-
Big bombs and barbed wire...
Can't you see
Our destiny?
We are making this Earth
Our funeral pyre!
Holy Earth
How can we heal you?
We cover you like a blight...
Strange birds of appetite...
If I had a heart I'd cry.
There's just too many people now
Too little land
Much too much desire
You feel so feeble now
It's so out of hand
Big bombs and barbed wire
We've set our lovely sky
Our lovely sky
On fire!
There's just too many people now
And too little land
Too much rage and desire
It makes you feel so feeble now
It's so out of hand-
Big bombs and barbed wire...
Can't you see
Our destiny?
We are making this Earth
Our funeral pyre!
Holy Earth
How can we heal you?
We cover you like a blight...
Strange birds of appetite...
If I had a heart I'd cry.
8
Horror and beauty both. The water is so beautiful and yet so dangerous, possibly, for us all. And then there is the horror that is Lamar Smith.
4
Interesting article, beautiful graphics but a terrible and misleading headline which has no real support in the article itself.
2
Republicans blame the "lame-stream media" for disagreeing with their ideas about "family values", war and peace, Benghazi and all things political. But pure scientific research; things that lead to cures for cancer, vaccines, natural disaster forecasts that save countless lives? All politically motivated, according to Rep Lamar Smith, the house's science guru. "I am not a scientist, but..." takes on new meaning. The new phrase should be: "I do not know, and I refuse any funding to find out_____." Fill in the blank, and thus shut down any chance to learn anything. Now even NASA, the NOAA and the National Science foundation are subversive entities.
7
What an excellent and exciting example of journalism for this century! Excellent and engaging reporting on probably the most important global issue, coupled with a stunning multimedia presentation.
7
This is a wonderful piece about the work to understand the Greenland ice sheet. Excellent work telling this story!
7
Imagine all the oil and other resources humans will exploit. The melting of the ice is not a curse but a blessing for our children's children. They will still be able to drive large SUV's in the future, only just on higher grounds. Ain't terraforming fun.
2
Greenland, Iceland and Labrador may be returning to the much warmer climate that is believed to have prevailed 1000 years ago, when the Norsemen first colonized there.
4
For those who may mistake my comment as a denial of the current wisdom of curbing fossil fuel burning, be assured that is not the case. I merely wish to call attention to the historically acknowledged fact of a much warmer period that occurred for several centuries about 1000 years ago. Perhaps that was because of volcanic release of greenhouse gases. I really do not know. It is however a fact that needs acknowledgement and further thought by those knowledgeable in such fields of research.
Stunning video. Beautiful. Seductive.
I believe climate change is upon us, and that it will change further still. It will not be all negative, but the benefits will go to the haves, while the have-nots will feel the harsh negatives. With the Catholic Church on board, and numerous corporations and political leaders too, all that remains for us in the US is to get our GOP on board. Sigh!
I believe climate change is upon us, and that it will change further still. It will not be all negative, but the benefits will go to the haves, while the have-nots will feel the harsh negatives. With the Catholic Church on board, and numerous corporations and political leaders too, all that remains for us in the US is to get our GOP on board. Sigh!
2
Global climate is cyclical. Powerful politicians would like us all to believe that the cycle can and should be changed by man, with the by-products of political and economic power shifts as well as putting enemies out of business. A quick look at a history book might tell you Greenland was once covered by verdant forests, they froze over as part of a natural cycle.
It wasn't that long ago our finest scientists demanded we fight global cooling, which would have produced an ice age right away. They mandated automakers tinker with the engines such that carbon dioxide went down. They missed Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and now we've got a hole in the ozone layer. Today's politically motivated scientists vs. cycles that last for hundreds or thousands of years. Who would you believe.
It wasn't that long ago our finest scientists demanded we fight global cooling, which would have produced an ice age right away. They mandated automakers tinker with the engines such that carbon dioxide went down. They missed Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and now we've got a hole in the ozone layer. Today's politically motivated scientists vs. cycles that last for hundreds or thousands of years. Who would you believe.
2
I'm truly fascinated. Your first paragraph challenges the notion that the global climate "can and should be changed by man" and your second paragraph blames scientists for the hole in the ozone layer and suggests we could have triggered an ice age. I'm afraid this fetish for cycles has got you engaged in cyclical reasoning, if you'll pardon the pun.
I'd believe the people who've studied the subject, like Dr Ruddiman, climate scientist who wrote a book called Plows, Plagues and Petroleum, How Humans took Control of the Climate. 2005.
In it, you'll find that scientists note that our Earth's cooling, there's less vulcanism, and therefore less CO2 being put into our atmosphere. Also, in the last 2.75 million years, there have been 40 to 50 glacial cycles. All but the current one were determined:
by Earth's orbit going from round to oval and back-- a 100,000 year cycle;
and by the tilt of Earth's axis, from 22.2 to 24.5 degrees, a 41,000 year cycle, and by the wobble of Earths axis, a 22,000 cycle.
The effects of these are all measurable.
In the current glacial cycle, we should be well on the way to having a glacier in NE Canada, the Arctic and Antarctic Seas should be well frozen by now -- like they were predicting in the 1970s. So what happened?
Dr Ruddiman found that about 5000 years ago, methane in the atmosphere was going up significantly when the Earth orbit model said it should be going down. After a lot of research including archaeologists; pollen from core borings in lakes and ponds across southern Europe, and more
Long story short, about 6000 years ago, people started altering our global climate with agriculture. A slooooowww increase till the mid 1700s when our increasing energy use has taken us from below 250 ppm to above 400 ppm of Carbon Dioxide in only 250 years. And THAT'S serious!
In it, you'll find that scientists note that our Earth's cooling, there's less vulcanism, and therefore less CO2 being put into our atmosphere. Also, in the last 2.75 million years, there have been 40 to 50 glacial cycles. All but the current one were determined:
by Earth's orbit going from round to oval and back-- a 100,000 year cycle;
and by the tilt of Earth's axis, from 22.2 to 24.5 degrees, a 41,000 year cycle, and by the wobble of Earths axis, a 22,000 cycle.
The effects of these are all measurable.
In the current glacial cycle, we should be well on the way to having a glacier in NE Canada, the Arctic and Antarctic Seas should be well frozen by now -- like they were predicting in the 1970s. So what happened?
Dr Ruddiman found that about 5000 years ago, methane in the atmosphere was going up significantly when the Earth orbit model said it should be going down. After a lot of research including archaeologists; pollen from core borings in lakes and ponds across southern Europe, and more
Long story short, about 6000 years ago, people started altering our global climate with agriculture. A slooooowww increase till the mid 1700s when our increasing energy use has taken us from below 250 ppm to above 400 ppm of Carbon Dioxide in only 250 years. And THAT'S serious!
We can ship off tons of cash to support supposed allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, without any accounting whatsoever, yet we quibble over a relatively small research budget because some don't like the wording or the concept that they could be wrong.
Why do we have such people chairing extremely important committees?
Why do we have such people chairing extremely important committees?
20
Answer: The ballot box
According to respected researcher Jason Box, and his colleagues, Greenland was both warmer, and had smaller glaciers during the early 20th century warm period from about 1919 - the mid 1940's.
According to respected ice and arctic expert Richard Alley human affects on arctic climates have yet to eclipse the regions extreme natural variability.
While Greenland has waxed and waned tremendously over the ages, it was warmer there at least 5 times in the last 3,200 +/- years than at present, and at those times the globe was warmer too, and featured far less ice mass as more had previously melted.
The paleo data from Minoan, Roma, Medieval, and the more recent data from the 20th century, clarify, ice and temperature changes at Greenland are entirely conisistent with the norms and variables in place for thousands of years before any human industrialization or the use of carbon fuels for transportation, etc ...
Ocean and solar cycles (particularly the AMO-which you will be reading and hearing about more as it brings cold and cold water) are already in the process (after the El Nino passes) of a long multi-decadal cool-phase, just as occurred after the warmer more melted 1919-140's warm period, our short human life spans often breed a misunderstanding of the natural world, our window of sight is too short and we ignore the past.
Example, Hannibal did not cross the Alps on ice skates, as any glaciers then were not obstacles, nor were they for the Roman's, or in Medieval times.
According to respected ice and arctic expert Richard Alley human affects on arctic climates have yet to eclipse the regions extreme natural variability.
While Greenland has waxed and waned tremendously over the ages, it was warmer there at least 5 times in the last 3,200 +/- years than at present, and at those times the globe was warmer too, and featured far less ice mass as more had previously melted.
The paleo data from Minoan, Roma, Medieval, and the more recent data from the 20th century, clarify, ice and temperature changes at Greenland are entirely conisistent with the norms and variables in place for thousands of years before any human industrialization or the use of carbon fuels for transportation, etc ...
Ocean and solar cycles (particularly the AMO-which you will be reading and hearing about more as it brings cold and cold water) are already in the process (after the El Nino passes) of a long multi-decadal cool-phase, just as occurred after the warmer more melted 1919-140's warm period, our short human life spans often breed a misunderstanding of the natural world, our window of sight is too short and we ignore the past.
Example, Hannibal did not cross the Alps on ice skates, as any glaciers then were not obstacles, nor were they for the Roman's, or in Medieval times.
13
"That summer, after hearing about the ship Oden finding methane in the Arctic, Box tweeted, "If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we're f'd." This tweet was covered extensively by the media."
All you say may well be true, but it really does not change the message...
All you say may well be true, but it really does not change the message...
11
Before people read the names Jason Box and Richard Alley and assume wmar is presenting their work honestly, they should take a closer look. Drs. Alley and Box are both fine scientists, and this commenter is expert at distorting their meaning. His work most closely resembles that of Marc Morano, who worked for Rush Limbaugh before he supported James Inhofe at the EPA (Morano, that is).
wmar's work is deceptively plausible but not reliable.
wmar's work is deceptively plausible but not reliable.
18
You just don't get two important fact through your locked in a loop head. There are no geological precedents for one species of half intelligent ape to systematically locate and burn most of the planet's biologically deposited carbon over a 300 year period, culminating in a population of double-digit billions of people.
8
The GOP has become of the ostrich. Better to bury your head in the sand than deal with the realities of global warming.
31
Stunning multimedia presentation and vital reporting. Bravo to the NYT for using technology to enhance the online reader experience! The story is beautiful and tragic at the same time.
39
Absolutely. Nicely done NYT!
2
A great time to buy potentially rich farmland in Greenland!
2
Toady's digital front page tells it all you need to know about 2015 America in the layout of 2 articles.
The first, in the top center, is an article with a beautiful photo and extradonary further photos that tells us of the results of scientific studies that show how we are losing the world as we k now it through climate change and how the GOP wants to stop funding for such research.
The second, in the left column, is a politico article announcing that Ben Carson, the retired doctor who believes the earth is 6,000 years old has become the national frontrunner for the Repiblican candidate for President of the US.
Clearly, the left column illustrates how the GOP intends to curtail what we see in the center.
Folks, we are indeed doomed.
The first, in the top center, is an article with a beautiful photo and extradonary further photos that tells us of the results of scientific studies that show how we are losing the world as we k now it through climate change and how the GOP wants to stop funding for such research.
The second, in the left column, is a politico article announcing that Ben Carson, the retired doctor who believes the earth is 6,000 years old has become the national frontrunner for the Repiblican candidate for President of the US.
Clearly, the left column illustrates how the GOP intends to curtail what we see in the center.
Folks, we are indeed doomed.
88
Quit worrying about the GOP and start worrying about the slow collapse of American society. Take your blinders of and look around.
We are doomed indeed if we don't vote.
Yet many of these comments indicate the hypocrisy. So many people travel& emit pollution then suggest that environmental destruction is caused by somebody else. Terrible. Beside this is summer in Greenland when ice & snow melt.
What a truly superb and innovative article. Such a pity that senator from Texas has so little understanding and the mindset to challenge why we need to know and why we need to carry out this research. What is it with people like this that they lack the imagination to see what is happening? The de-salination of northern Atlantic waters is going to cause a massive problem. Ridiculous as it may seem the scenarios from The Day After Tomorrow, was predicated on exactly what is now happening. You can but wonder.
16
Mind-blowing information. Phenomenal presentation.
11
I accept climate change because since when, was the climate ever constant?
Global warming... global cooling... have both occurred with great frequency. Cooling in Greenland 1000 years ago was even noted in the comments below. So another question should be answered by the church of climate hysteria: Do you deny the cooling of Greenland 1000 years ago and the inevitable cooling to come? More so, what are you doing to bolster your argument? Do you heat and cool your house? Drive? Use Apple products?
It's quite simple church goers... lead by example and stop your usage of fossil fuel products and their derivatives. Until then I deny your hysteria.
Global warming... global cooling... have both occurred with great frequency. Cooling in Greenland 1000 years ago was even noted in the comments below. So another question should be answered by the church of climate hysteria: Do you deny the cooling of Greenland 1000 years ago and the inevitable cooling to come? More so, what are you doing to bolster your argument? Do you heat and cool your house? Drive? Use Apple products?
It's quite simple church goers... lead by example and stop your usage of fossil fuel products and their derivatives. Until then I deny your hysteria.
6
The fact that climate has changes in the past does not mean the pumping millions of tons of heat-retaining gases into the atmosphere doesn't have an effect. Lung cancer and emphysema been around forever. That doesn't mean you should smoke cigarettes or won't suffer the consequences if you do.
1
The excuse for walter Bally to do nothing is to accuse people of being hypocrites. This is one of weaker arguments against the reality of AGW you will see.
For the record my wife and I installed solar PV in 2003 and have taken more steps than I can mention to work on reducing our and others carbon footprints. Millions of people ARE leading by example and Walter's excuse to deny the reality should be seen for the craven nonsense it is.
For the record my wife and I installed solar PV in 2003 and have taken more steps than I can mention to work on reducing our and others carbon footprints. Millions of people ARE leading by example and Walter's excuse to deny the reality should be seen for the craven nonsense it is.
So unless individuals who agree with 99% of scientists that the current global warming trend is anthrogenic & will cause massive disruption to our way of life eschew all the trappings of a modern lifestyle, whatever they say, think and research can be safely ignored...?
Congratulations. What a spectacular way to report on a compelling story that underscores the irrelevancy of so much of TV news, and our partisan political discourse.
13
Journalistic standards used to demand the fierce challenge of false facts told in pursuit of partisan political discourse or for the profit of certain industries - like oil and gas. Now, thanks largely to the big door opened by the SCOTUS the opposite holds true. The Koch machine is working overtime to tell the public that stories like this are 'false' or 'misinterpreted.' Think of all the virgin golf courses being opened up in Greenland for Trump to develop (a golf course uses nearly twenty times the amount of fresh water and pesticides as a farm).
Amount of water it would take, per day, to support 4.7 billion people at the UN daily minimum: 2.5 billion gallons
Amount of water used, per day, to irrigate the world’s golf courses: 2.5 billion gallons
<>
Amount of water it would take, per day, to support 4.7 billion people at the UN daily minimum: 2.5 billion gallons
Amount of water used, per day, to irrigate the world’s golf courses: 2.5 billion gallons
<>
1) What is NASA doing funding an expedition to measure melt flow-rate in Greenland? Shouldn't their area of responsibility be deep-space astronomy, interplanetary probes and manned space-flight? Earth-focused missions (up to earth-sensing satellites) should be NOAA responsibility.
2) What kind of resolution do scientists really need? The amount of ice-melt required to raise the ocean an inch is enormous, surely enough to be visible from space. Maybe they do need "on the ground" information, but with billions of dollars in research funding at stake every year, it's worth closer scrutiny.
3) A lot of the Earth is a frozen wasteland (e.g. Greenland). Melting ice opens up arable/habitable land. This will surely mitigate some of the effects of a rising ocean. Lets not forget that North America used to be covered in ice halfway down to Oklahoma. I'll take global warming over global cooling any day.
4) Good luck keeping the world in a state of self-imposed poverty. You'll have better luck making water flow uphill. Balancing the budget would be a good first baby-step...
2) What kind of resolution do scientists really need? The amount of ice-melt required to raise the ocean an inch is enormous, surely enough to be visible from space. Maybe they do need "on the ground" information, but with billions of dollars in research funding at stake every year, it's worth closer scrutiny.
3) A lot of the Earth is a frozen wasteland (e.g. Greenland). Melting ice opens up arable/habitable land. This will surely mitigate some of the effects of a rising ocean. Lets not forget that North America used to be covered in ice halfway down to Oklahoma. I'll take global warming over global cooling any day.
4) Good luck keeping the world in a state of self-imposed poverty. You'll have better luck making water flow uphill. Balancing the budget would be a good first baby-step...
4
Re your point #3: it may occur to you that those frozen wastelands are not inhabited (or barely so) and that while they slowly become available, low lying areas will flood and an enormous belt of already arid land will baloon. Do you propose to resettle Florida, Texas and Arizona to Greenland? Or the Canadian North? How expensive do you think that will be. The billions of dollars you mention in point #2 are chicken feed compared to the cost of that. And the externally imposed poverty will dwarf the self-imposed one of your point #4.
1
When Republican owned seaside mansions become threatened by global warming (e.g. on Fisher Island in Florida), global warming will become a national priority.
1
Ignoring your first three points as not sincere I will only respond to the nonsense of your fourth...whatever.
New clean tech is being introduced and marketed around the world helping people to breathe cleaner air, drink cleaner water, and lower carbon footprints. Fossil fuels are becoming part of the ignorant past of humanity.
Balancing the budget is what stupid people advocate for and why you are wrong can be summed up quickly by reminding people what happened after WWII when debt to GDP was over one hundred percent. Anyone remember something called the "post-war boom"???
New clean tech is being introduced and marketed around the world helping people to breathe cleaner air, drink cleaner water, and lower carbon footprints. Fossil fuels are becoming part of the ignorant past of humanity.
Balancing the budget is what stupid people advocate for and why you are wrong can be summed up quickly by reminding people what happened after WWII when debt to GDP was over one hundred percent. Anyone remember something called the "post-war boom"???
That statement about a lost "$3,000..." it reflects a misconception about money. The $3,000 long ago went to all the people who developed and manufactured the equipment, and from them it went to their grocers, landlords, auto leasing companies and mutual funds. A valuable piece of equipment was lost, and maybe some data and time... but not money. Money doesn't die until the federal government extinguishes it via taxation... to make room for next year's brand new money. Worrying about the money instead of climate change is not only short-sighted: It's not justifiable. In fact, hobgoblins about money are hobbling the country. Scarcity of money is always a choice, never a fact.
10
How exactly is the tax dollars spent on this research "extinguishing" the money that you so ably describe. On the whole, government expenditure supports a whole lot of worthwhile things, unlike our greedy oligarchs.
3
I'm not sure you read my comment correctly. It doesn't say that the money spent on this research was extinguished; it says the opposite. Dollars vanish when the federal government taxes it out of existence, to make room for the money that the government spends into existence. In between its creation and extinguishment, money moves from hand to hand. Banks create money by lending, and extinguish it when the loan is repaid.
Climate change - whether or not it is influenced by humans - is happening. It is the height of short-sighted stupidity not to fund the gathering of information that will help us prepare for the future, and maybe even have some say in what that future will look like. I am very happy to see our tax dollars at work in this stunning research. Thanks for the article, NYT.
34
I'm so depressed by this...I keep thinking what would have happened had Gore become president...
53
Gore was elected President. Governor JEB! with the collusion of SCOTUS stole the election.
Fantastic!
…This is “real” science…
Kudos to Brandon Overstreet and the climate-research, “adventurers.” Thanks also to NASA/NOAA for their funding. And a kick in the pants for Representative Lamar Smith, for being typically obstinate.
Hopefully now, we have “real” measurements, that:
1. lend [more] credibility to the so called, “estimated rate of change of global warming” and it’s associated effects [rising sea levels, etc].
2. can not be dismissed by by high level Congressional staffers, lobbyists, and academic naysayers.
3. the public can understand, in the only way possible when it comes to voting for change—that is, by using common sense.
…The next step of course is not necessarily to decide, “what can be done,” but rather how to employ the talents of enterprising scientists like Mr. Overstreet, as they begin to measure the potential effects of currently proposed methods to mitigate the various effects of global warming…
…This is “real” science…
Kudos to Brandon Overstreet and the climate-research, “adventurers.” Thanks also to NASA/NOAA for their funding. And a kick in the pants for Representative Lamar Smith, for being typically obstinate.
Hopefully now, we have “real” measurements, that:
1. lend [more] credibility to the so called, “estimated rate of change of global warming” and it’s associated effects [rising sea levels, etc].
2. can not be dismissed by by high level Congressional staffers, lobbyists, and academic naysayers.
3. the public can understand, in the only way possible when it comes to voting for change—that is, by using common sense.
…The next step of course is not necessarily to decide, “what can be done,” but rather how to employ the talents of enterprising scientists like Mr. Overstreet, as they begin to measure the potential effects of currently proposed methods to mitigate the various effects of global warming…
12
Greenland was much warmer in the 10th century than it is today. Norway established its first settlement on Greenland’s east coast in 986. The Eastern Settlement was the first European settlement in North America, preceding Columbus’ voyage of discovery by about 500 years. Eventually there were three settlements, which contained hundreds of farms, 16 churches and about 4,000 inhabitants. The first contact between Europeans and Native Americans occurred in Greenland. Greenland was uninhabited when the Norse arrived, but in the 1100s Inuits crossed from the North American mainland and began attacking the Norse farms in Greenland’s central valley. The settlements begin to decline as the climate cooled and disappeared altogether in the 14th century with the onset of the Little Ice Age.
8
We will all drown in the arrogance of the upper 0.01% and the righteousness of their enablers and ignorance of their followers.
30
I suppose we should look for a silver lining.
We have one article showing us that the arctic ice is melting, and another predicting that the middle east will be too hot for humans in another century. Maybe all that melting will free up a place for people chased out of their homes by steaming temperatures to migrate to. Assuming that the land remains above water level of course.
No need to worry!
We have one article showing us that the arctic ice is melting, and another predicting that the middle east will be too hot for humans in another century. Maybe all that melting will free up a place for people chased out of their homes by steaming temperatures to migrate to. Assuming that the land remains above water level of course.
No need to worry!
1
Breathtaking. But only infuriating to hear the same dire report again and again and again.
6
Then perhaps you should heed the dire facts that the report provides and act on them, instead of not wanting to know. Repressing the information does not change nature.
2
It's so sad and beautiful all at once. But we knew about this 20-30 years ago so why do we have to fight for funding that is less than the cost of a cruise missile?
14
A letter from Mother Earth:
Dear #everybody,
Do #you still want a #life well lived for all of you and for your #future #generations, but how it is possible if you let me #destroyed. This is your last #chance to take #care of me, who feeds and took care of you for #centuries. Now, I'm #asking for your #help, do your part to #save me. If each of you plays a part, if all of you #acts #together.. that's a #big #thing and I will #last for more #years.
#Sincerely yours,
#Mother #Earth
Dear #everybody,
Do #you still want a #life well lived for all of you and for your #future #generations, but how it is possible if you let me #destroyed. This is your last #chance to take #care of me, who feeds and took care of you for #centuries. Now, I'm #asking for your #help, do your part to #save me. If each of you plays a part, if all of you #acts #together.. that's a #big #thing and I will #last for more #years.
#Sincerely yours,
#Mother #Earth
2
As much as I agree and supportive sentiment of your post, I'm pretty sure Mother Earth isn't quite the Twitter enthusiast you have projected on her!
Congressional Republicans need to appropriate more, not less, for the study of environmental and ecological changes that may affect us in the future. The problem is that the researchers now on the job are obviously all left-wing tree huggers and need to be replaced with Tea Party adherents who will see the benefits of these changes: Massive melting of Arctic ice could be harnessed to produce more water for drinking and irrigation. And Greenland could become the destination to which we send all the Syrians fleeing the conflagrations at home. Great for summer tourism too: "Escape the heat. Chill as Greenland melts!"
4
Conditions on this planet seem to be changing with alarming rapidity. Couple this article with the Oct.26th NYT article concerning ungodly temperatures in the Middle East and the picture becomes absolutely
frightening.
frightening.
11
In Canada, which is being profoundly affected by climate change, we got rid of our climate change denier Conservative prime minister Harper and our new Liberal prime minister Trudeau has a majority in the parlement and all the provincial premiers on his side in regards to climate change.
Harper muzzled government scientists, slashed funding and closed down major research centers. No information regarding the environment in an effort to keep the public ignorant. We finally threw out Harper out big time. Now the Americans should throw out these crazy Republican climate deniers.
Harper muzzled government scientists, slashed funding and closed down major research centers. No information regarding the environment in an effort to keep the public ignorant. We finally threw out Harper out big time. Now the Americans should throw out these crazy Republican climate deniers.
156
Val in Brooklyn, NY to science prof in Canada
Bravo and believe me, we're working on it. Please keep your fingers crossed for us next year. And I must say, emigrating to Canada or anywhere sensible sounds better all the time.
To the NYT: BRAVO for this gorgeous report on a very real nightmare!
Keep it up.
Preach! Preach! Preach!
Submitted 10-28-15@2:56 a.m. EST
Bravo and believe me, we're working on it. Please keep your fingers crossed for us next year. And I must say, emigrating to Canada or anywhere sensible sounds better all the time.
To the NYT: BRAVO for this gorgeous report on a very real nightmare!
Keep it up.
Preach! Preach! Preach!
Submitted 10-28-15@2:56 a.m. EST
This is vitally important research. The climate deniers of course will reject it, but better establishing the rate of melting is powerful evidence that anyone not funded by the fossil fuel industry should be able accept.
We already know that much glacial melt flows underneath the ice which causes the glaciers to more quickly slide into the ocean. The water acts like a lubricant between the ice and rock. Hopefully, this work will give us a better understanding on how much surface water is finding its way down there.
We also know that about 90% of global warming has gone into the oceans. As the oceans heat up, they will be more able to erode the ice sheets when they come into contact with the water as they slide into the sea.
We also know that atmospheric warming is not evenly distributed across the planet. The air over the polar regions is getting much hotter than at other regions. When average numbers are quoted, they don't reveal the severity of the danger to polar ice.
Taking all of these factors into account, the polar ice sheets are in grave danger of disappearing. If all of this ice melted, which would take centuries, ocean levels would rise something like 150 feet! If only 10% of that rise occurs this century, coastal areas will disappear.
This new information will give the world a much better understanding of the situation but how do we get so many in power to accept and understand any of it?
We already know that much glacial melt flows underneath the ice which causes the glaciers to more quickly slide into the ocean. The water acts like a lubricant between the ice and rock. Hopefully, this work will give us a better understanding on how much surface water is finding its way down there.
We also know that about 90% of global warming has gone into the oceans. As the oceans heat up, they will be more able to erode the ice sheets when they come into contact with the water as they slide into the sea.
We also know that atmospheric warming is not evenly distributed across the planet. The air over the polar regions is getting much hotter than at other regions. When average numbers are quoted, they don't reveal the severity of the danger to polar ice.
Taking all of these factors into account, the polar ice sheets are in grave danger of disappearing. If all of this ice melted, which would take centuries, ocean levels would rise something like 150 feet! If only 10% of that rise occurs this century, coastal areas will disappear.
This new information will give the world a much better understanding of the situation but how do we get so many in power to accept and understand any of it?
16
What an amazing group of courageous, talented and dedicated to the good of mankind, theses scientists are! Incredible pictures! Awesome article!
14
Beautiful and terrifying. Thank you, scientists!
8
The warming, and greening, of the Earth has been proceeding unsteadily for the last 11,000 years or so, and happily may continue for a while longer, to the benefit of civilization and most of the living cover of the planet before, most probably, reversing yet again, placing much of life back in the freezer. Of course, there are losers as well as winners in these processes, as there are with most cycles, natural or man-made.
3
Impressive compelling visual. What it immediately brought to mind is that evangelists can appropriate not enough money in their estimation for war and killing people, yet want to cut off funding for science so as to insure more of the population to exist in the future. Hopefully articles like this will enlighten and allow some of our grandchildren's children to exist.
12
Absolutely stunning. Thank you for this article and for putting this on the front page and showing us readers what exactly is going on. If this doesn't give climate change deniers pause and persuade them to reconsider, I don't know what will. This is why I love the New York Times!
16
Wow. Fabulous layout, graphics, captions, content. I love these types of articles . This one reminds me of the one you did on the avalanche on Stevens Pass in WA a couple years ago. Well done.
8
We're going to have to come to the realization that there are simply too many people on Earth for the planet to bear.
15
Over and over, again we see this meme repeated, that it's ONLY the human population, and not the way that population chooses to live on the planet. QT, please broaden your horizons.
Global warming is the single-most important issue facing every human being who lives on our planet. The ramifications are so enormous, it boggles the mind. And no matter how much money you have, you cannot buy yourself out of this one. And no matter how much some politicians deny it, it's here to stay--forever. The findings in Greenland will likely aid us immeasurably in planning for the future--where we should build, indeed where we should live. One can only hope that elected representatives and business leaders will take this seriously now, and take the lead in planning for a very different future than any one of us can imagine.
12
Global warming denial is my primary reason for never voting Republican. As others have said, this is the most important issue of our time. As some parts of the world become uninhabitable, immigration caused by climate change (and I think it's already one of the main reasons) will become a much bigger problem.
24
An outstanding, if disturbing report. Makes my Times subscription well worth the price.
8
I recently traveled to Greenland -- one of the most beautiful and environmentally fragile places on the planet -- and wrote an article about the trip. One commenter pooh-poohed my concerns about the environmental changes taking place there. During my trip I was told by some guides that China and Greenland were working out a deal under which China would extract Greenland's minerals. As if climate change weren't bad enough!
20
As humans, if we don't see it we tend to forget it's there—if we even believe it in the first place (like evolution, microscopic life, etc.). Thanks for this important and impressive work.
12
Congress allocated $778,000 for three years which includes everything for the team of scientists so they are essentially operating at $259,000 per year --including salaries. According to a legislative website, Senator Lamar Alexander makes $174,000 per year and requires staffing at a cost of $1.3 million per year...all at taxpayer's expense. (There was no information on how much additional money Lamar Alexander seeks for reimbursement of his "expenses.") Somehow I think Senator Alexander should be looking to cut from his office budget before looking anywhere else.
154
After the ocean level rises 20 ft, it will be too late to re-think what might have been done to prevent this.
27
Sorry, the the oceans aren't rising. Check the NOAA's data out from Alameda Bay near San Francisco from 1939 – 2014. No material rise in water level. Shocking, isn't it? http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/437.php
Chart here: http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/437_high.png
They way you alarmists phrase it, SF should have been underwater long ago.
Chart here: http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/437_high.png
They way you alarmists phrase it, SF should have been underwater long ago.
An ocean rise of 20 ft will take at least 200 years (my bet is 1000 years) but even at 200 I think that cities can easily move in time. After all they have all (99%) been built over the past 100 years. Sea levels are rising at 1 ft per century, steady for about 200 years.
How about a chart showing how much the Benghazi Committee has spent in their pursuit of nonsense vs. the pittance being spent on how fast Greenland is melting?
This is extremely hazardous work and I'm grateful to these researchers for their courage and persistance.
Please, for the sake of our grandchildren, never vote for a Republican until they come to their senses on climate change.
This is extremely hazardous work and I'm grateful to these researchers for their courage and persistance.
Please, for the sake of our grandchildren, never vote for a Republican until they come to their senses on climate change.
207
Republicans will never come to their senses. They are brain-numb.
6
Sad but true.
Nobody should vote for a Republican, ever, they refuse to evolve and should be extinct.
The problem is not that people are denying the truth. The problem is the people who claim global warming is happening offer only one solution: The US and other advanced countries should return to the stone age. The efforts of conservation and use of renewable technologies doesn't scratch the surface of world carbon output. The solution proposed by the liberal left is no solution, even if you believe any of their claims.
This is because they refuse to embrace geo-engineering. With 7,000,000,000 uncontrollable people on the planet, virtually none of whom will stop burning things an releasing carbon into the air simply because you say so, something of a much grander scale would be needed to address the problem you claim exists. Whether it be dumping iron filings into the ocean deserts to foster growth of plankton, or putting a sun shade in space, any solution to the claimed problem must be on a vast scale. Telling everyone to drive 55 mph won't do it.
If what you say is true, the only other way to address the problem is to wait for population to decrease in the face of environmental pressure. This is the ultimate negative feedback loop that will save the Earth (if what you say is true).
By the way, the Greenland Ice Sheet has been melting for thousands of years. We are in the midst of an interglacial warm period. Duh.
This is because they refuse to embrace geo-engineering. With 7,000,000,000 uncontrollable people on the planet, virtually none of whom will stop burning things an releasing carbon into the air simply because you say so, something of a much grander scale would be needed to address the problem you claim exists. Whether it be dumping iron filings into the ocean deserts to foster growth of plankton, or putting a sun shade in space, any solution to the claimed problem must be on a vast scale. Telling everyone to drive 55 mph won't do it.
If what you say is true, the only other way to address the problem is to wait for population to decrease in the face of environmental pressure. This is the ultimate negative feedback loop that will save the Earth (if what you say is true).
By the way, the Greenland Ice Sheet has been melting for thousands of years. We are in the midst of an interglacial warm period. Duh.
7
"The problem is the people who claim global warming is happening offer only one solution: The US and other advanced countries should return to the stone age."
The return to the stone age will be caused by the rising seas and destruction of the human race by those who deny human-caused climate change. And geoengineering schemes will probably result in unforseen crises, resulting in a forced return to the stone age.
The real solution: ramp up clean energy and keep fossil fuels in the ground....a war-time effort undertaken by all industrialized nations, as well as research into taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it safely. Unfortunately, with climate deniers leading US House Science Committee, we are moving in the opposite direction. Duh.
The return to the stone age will be caused by the rising seas and destruction of the human race by those who deny human-caused climate change. And geoengineering schemes will probably result in unforseen crises, resulting in a forced return to the stone age.
The real solution: ramp up clean energy and keep fossil fuels in the ground....a war-time effort undertaken by all industrialized nations, as well as research into taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it safely. Unfortunately, with climate deniers leading US House Science Committee, we are moving in the opposite direction. Duh.
153
"The problem is not that people are denying the truth. The problem is the people who claim global warming is happening offer only one solution: The US and other advanced countries should return to the stone age. "
You, sir, are the one peddling "Hooey". Talk about the ultimate in "straw man" arguments. Absolutely zero people who believe anthrogenic climate change is a problem are arguing for a 'return to the stone age'.
What they are arguing for is a GREATER commitment to the science, and imposition of either a) a Carbon tax, or b) a Carbon emission cap & trade program.
Imposition of other of these practices will impose a price on the negative externalities of carbon emission, and allow the magic of CAPITALISM to derive a solution.
Clearly, you are what passes for a conservative these days - one who would accuse "the Left" of naive idealism, while your proposed 'solution' to the problem (which you then ultimately deny) Solar shields and iron seeding the Oceans are pie in the sky fantasies that may not even be possible engineering wise and if so would cost trillions.
We ALREADY KNOW that cap & trade works - does anyone talk about 'acid rain' anymore....? NO. Because the SO2 cap & trade program imposed under the (Yes) Reagan administration worked.
Then your 'final solution' (pun definitely intended) is to simply allow some significant fraction of the World's 7 Billion to perish in climate related war, famine and pestilence.
Your brilliance knows no bounds.
You, sir, are the one peddling "Hooey". Talk about the ultimate in "straw man" arguments. Absolutely zero people who believe anthrogenic climate change is a problem are arguing for a 'return to the stone age'.
What they are arguing for is a GREATER commitment to the science, and imposition of either a) a Carbon tax, or b) a Carbon emission cap & trade program.
Imposition of other of these practices will impose a price on the negative externalities of carbon emission, and allow the magic of CAPITALISM to derive a solution.
Clearly, you are what passes for a conservative these days - one who would accuse "the Left" of naive idealism, while your proposed 'solution' to the problem (which you then ultimately deny) Solar shields and iron seeding the Oceans are pie in the sky fantasies that may not even be possible engineering wise and if so would cost trillions.
We ALREADY KNOW that cap & trade works - does anyone talk about 'acid rain' anymore....? NO. Because the SO2 cap & trade program imposed under the (Yes) Reagan administration worked.
Then your 'final solution' (pun definitely intended) is to simply allow some significant fraction of the World's 7 Billion to perish in climate related war, famine and pestilence.
Your brilliance knows no bounds.
19
So which is it--it's not happening or it's too rapid to stop?? The USA could quite easily function free of combustion. It's only a matter of will--the will to value something besides profit.
4
Have Greenland temperatures reached the peaks of the 14th century, when Greenland was really green, and when there were no carbon emissions?
6
So far, very little from presidential campaigners about our collective near future. A forecast from the Population Institute warns that by 2030:
Global population increases from 7.4 billion to 8.3 billion.
Demand for food grows by 40 percent, but supplies do not keep up with demand. World grain reserves are empty. The Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) warns that bad harvests and grain export embargoes push 200 million people to “the brink of starvation.”
Demand for energy grows by 45 percent, but supplies do not keep up, and the resulting scarcity pushes energy prices to record highs.
Global demand for water grows by close to 30 percent. Water conservation measures help, but close to four billion people now live areas of high water stress.
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall far short of pledges made in 2010. Climate change is more evident, and the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions is dangerously close to the 450 ppm level that could trigger the worst effects of climate change. (150 million climate refugees; Bangladesh submerged; Himalayan glaciers gone; coral reefs are gone)
Shortages of food, energy and water are increasing the number of failed states and ratcheting up international tensions.
And of course, the Benghazi guys are meeting every Tuesday morning at a Cracker Barrel in Trey Gowdy's home town.
Global population increases from 7.4 billion to 8.3 billion.
Demand for food grows by 40 percent, but supplies do not keep up with demand. World grain reserves are empty. The Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) warns that bad harvests and grain export embargoes push 200 million people to “the brink of starvation.”
Demand for energy grows by 45 percent, but supplies do not keep up, and the resulting scarcity pushes energy prices to record highs.
Global demand for water grows by close to 30 percent. Water conservation measures help, but close to four billion people now live areas of high water stress.
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall far short of pledges made in 2010. Climate change is more evident, and the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions is dangerously close to the 450 ppm level that could trigger the worst effects of climate change. (150 million climate refugees; Bangladesh submerged; Himalayan glaciers gone; coral reefs are gone)
Shortages of food, energy and water are increasing the number of failed states and ratcheting up international tensions.
And of course, the Benghazi guys are meeting every Tuesday morning at a Cracker Barrel in Trey Gowdy's home town.
61
How on earth would we run out of food for a billion more people? Right now 50% of the US corn crop - which could feed another USA full of people - gets poured into _gasoline tanks!_ .
It's good that republicans have no say in the leadership of the WWF, otherwise they would surely put Walter Palmer in charge.
1
Yes Republicans, all those lakes and rivers of melting ice are all in our collective imaginations.
No need at all to study such phenomena to determine for example how the lubricating effect of all that water between ice and rock will accelerate the movement of the ice off of the rock.
And I agree we should not worry about climate change until the water is at least up to our ankles.
No need at all to study such phenomena to determine for example how the lubricating effect of all that water between ice and rock will accelerate the movement of the ice off of the rock.
And I agree we should not worry about climate change until the water is at least up to our ankles.
11
Thank you NYT and the science team that endured the cold and dangers to bring us this much needed article on global warming.
18
Have they started naming these rivers yet? The Koch River? The Cruz River? There are more than enough names even though there there are thousands of these rivers. Will this be in our schools' textbooks? Not if the Texas Board of Education has anything to do with it. What a sorry state of affairs when religious fundamentalism marries corporate greed and craven political ambition.
201
It's the summer, the ice melts. Nothing exposed but the obvious. Let's see what this area is like during the winter.
1
That would be incredibly ironic if scientists named them after climate-change deniers.
The Sexton River has a ring to it.
There's no such thing as climate change - the right wing politicians told us so....PLEASE NOTE SARCASM.
12
Thank you for this article ,I reminder to all of us we should honor earth ! Without it we are gone until a new species evolves.
3
Great reporting on climate change. Science denying can only be confronted with solid field research. I'd rather support these scientists with my tax dollars than endless military spending. Thank you for bringing these and other stories about our fragile planet to the front page!
61
Wonderful combination of reporting and design. Work like this most certainly justifies the paywall.
21
I recently flew back to Toronto from Amsterdam. Our plane flew over the southern tip of Greenland. From more than 30,000 feet you could see rivers making their way through the ice and you could see the vast ice cap behind them that was feeding them.
11
The large scale of the melting of the ice sheet is impressive and of course concerning. Good work and exciting research.
12
how is this exposing anything but the obvious? ice melts during the summer ...
Most humans have no more higher cognition that evolution gave to, and artificial took away from, sheep.
Jesus knew us well when he used the sheep as his model for correct human behavior. We humans *are* like sheep, left without a pastor, inside a fenced pasture. We will eat, defecate and procreate...until we all die of starvation.
One of the advantage of age: I won't be here when the bill for our stupidity comes due to our children.
Jesus knew us well when he used the sheep as his model for correct human behavior. We humans *are* like sheep, left without a pastor, inside a fenced pasture. We will eat, defecate and procreate...until we all die of starvation.
One of the advantage of age: I won't be here when the bill for our stupidity comes due to our children.
13
The thing about sheep and goats is in the Bible is that they are constantly referred to as food.
2
We are all lambs being led away to the slaughter...today by our own hands.
4
As a geologist, among other things, and one who has flown over the southern tip of Greenland countless times en route to Keflavik and Boston, I have nothing but praise for the researchers and for the Times presentation of the research. And the river is as we say nowadays, awesome.
Perhaps at future Republican debates or interview situations the non-believers - there are stronger words but non-believers will do - could be shown such graphic information to see how they respond.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Perhaps at future Republican debates or interview situations the non-believers - there are stronger words but non-believers will do - could be shown such graphic information to see how they respond.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
120
It won't make a difference. They don't form their beliefs on facts.
10
Full disclosure: I'm very concerned about climate change and believe the evidence is sufficiently compelling to conclude that global warming is resulting from increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
However, this article brings back a nagging question for me. 1,000 years ago, Greenland warmed significantly for a period of several hundred years — warm enough, in fact, that Viking settlers were able to farm there. Then, it got cold again and the Vikings had to abandon Greenland.
So, what caused that several hundred year period of extraordinary warmth? It certainly wasn't humans. And, to what extent are long-cycle climate trends like that one, which are not caused by humans, at play today?
However, this article brings back a nagging question for me. 1,000 years ago, Greenland warmed significantly for a period of several hundred years — warm enough, in fact, that Viking settlers were able to farm there. Then, it got cold again and the Vikings had to abandon Greenland.
So, what caused that several hundred year period of extraordinary warmth? It certainly wasn't humans. And, to what extent are long-cycle climate trends like that one, which are not caused by humans, at play today?
14
It will be at least 500 years more time before we can look at all of the data and answer the question you are asking. It is a valid question but not for this generation to answer.
7
It is interesting that this writer felt the need to establish his or her credentials as a true believer before making the observation. In itself, the point would be the same regardless of the writer's overall stance.
Is the necessity for such maneuvering more indicative of a science or a religion?
Is the necessity for such maneuvering more indicative of a science or a religion?
5
It's the speed of the melt that is significant. The natural warming spells you refer to are ones that occurred over the course of thousands of years. This melt, however, is accelerating by decades. Unprecedented.
The questions you ask feed into the notorious dismissal of GOP leaders who are incredibly called "moderates." I'm not a scientist, they say, thus attempting to put any discussion of the crisis aside.
The question we all must ask, carefully analyze through responsible internationally verified data, is this: What is the advantage, politically and economically, for those with the loudest voices, to continue claiming that climate change is only a natural cycle?
The questions you ask feed into the notorious dismissal of GOP leaders who are incredibly called "moderates." I'm not a scientist, they say, thus attempting to put any discussion of the crisis aside.
The question we all must ask, carefully analyze through responsible internationally verified data, is this: What is the advantage, politically and economically, for those with the loudest voices, to continue claiming that climate change is only a natural cycle?
205
Absolutely beautiful article.
62
"But the research is under increasing fire by some Republican leaders in Congress, who deny or question the scientific consensus that human activities contribute to climate change...."
We call it research because we are asking questions and pursuing answers about the world we live in. Cutting funding for data collection and critical research into climate change means legislators such as Smith are making decisions based on the "beliefs" of the oil and gas industry who fund them, not what is happening in the real world.
[And NY Times, what a wonderful job of using the technology to tell the story. Bravo to your graphics folks once again.]
We call it research because we are asking questions and pursuing answers about the world we live in. Cutting funding for data collection and critical research into climate change means legislators such as Smith are making decisions based on the "beliefs" of the oil and gas industry who fund them, not what is happening in the real world.
[And NY Times, what a wonderful job of using the technology to tell the story. Bravo to your graphics folks once again.]
349
It's not even the "beliefs" of the oil and gas industry. They know that climate change is real. In fact, they were among the first to know, having funded a significant portion of the early research. See the LA Times articles about Exxon, to learn more.
Concur about the NYT article, well done and excellent use of technology.
Concur about the NYT article, well done and excellent use of technology.
I wonder if Rep Lamar Smith would like to assure American taxpayers that his desire to gut funding for scientific research has nothing to do with Texas' oil industry donations to his campaign.
The evidence is there - and the GOP and their masters want the American public to pretend like they do, that it is not.
The evidence is there - and the GOP and their masters want the American public to pretend like they do, that it is not.
246
Fantastic job of reporting and photography. Thanks so much for this; it's the most effective kind of education.
121
its effective because it's emotional, just like the polar bears. Now all libs should be abandoning coastal cities in droves, that is, if they actually believe GW is real. But I suspect they will still put, because logic still tells them subconsciously that GW may not be real, so stay put in your coastal city, and don't worry. See even libs don't believe GW, otherwise they'd be relocating as we speak.
Val in Brooklyn, NY to Benji in Boise
Why don't you take your sophistry and trolling elsewhere? This is a stunningly photographed & videoed and very realistically written article about THE crisis that affects all earthlings, literally, regardless of kingdom or species--including you--and we're trying to figure out how to survive it.
NYT I second Maggie in NY's request. Please continue. There's absolutely nothing more important.
Submitted 10-28-15@2:21 a.m. EST
Why don't you take your sophistry and trolling elsewhere? This is a stunningly photographed & videoed and very realistically written article about THE crisis that affects all earthlings, literally, regardless of kingdom or species--including you--and we're trying to figure out how to survive it.
NYT I second Maggie in NY's request. Please continue. There's absolutely nothing more important.
Submitted 10-28-15@2:21 a.m. EST
Love the use of aerial imagery in this article! Please publish more articles about the empirical data scientists are collecting to improve and validate climate models. Disappointed but not surprised to hear that republicans are trying to disrupt funding for this type of research.
90
Three words. Fund. Climate. Science.
162
To a point I agree with this but at this point we should be funding all possible solutions.
Two words: Fund. Science.
3
The Quick Global Warming Denier Test: If you too read about this heroic scientific task, and all you managed to remember is the “That’s 3,000 taxpayer dollars, going down the hole” part, you might be a denier.
In that case I'd recommend reading this superb article more carefully and slowly, and noting just what this team in the freezing(-for-now) weather of Greenland has to deal with just to get some facts about the melt rate.
In that case I'd recommend reading this superb article more carefully and slowly, and noting just what this team in the freezing(-for-now) weather of Greenland has to deal with just to get some facts about the melt rate.
60
Global Warming is the most important issue of our times. Our very survival as a species depends on us taking immediate action now. We have let the fossil fuel industry and their paid deniers take over the conversation for much too long. The fossil fuel industry has been using the tobacco industry's "deny, deny, deny" playbook to stop any action to save our planet.
If you care about your children…your grandchildren or our very survival…then please don't sit on the sidelines any longer…let your voice be heard and demand decisive action by our leaders and governments to slow down man made Global Warming.
If you care about your children…your grandchildren or our very survival…then please don't sit on the sidelines any longer…let your voice be heard and demand decisive action by our leaders and governments to slow down man made Global Warming.
211
Yes, Suzanne, global warming is a very important 'issue'.
However, global Empire is the cause of all 'issues', "symptom problems", and our entire "ailing social order".
Empires used to kill and slaughter people directly, but the 'new improved formula' of Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire kills our environment directly and kills humanity indirectly.
The "Crisis of Humanity" is global Empire as a disease, like cancer -- hidden unless properly diagnosed and treated.
As Zygmunt Bauman hauntingly puts it, “In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis…is a crucial, perhaps decisive, part of the disease.”13
Berman, Morris 2011 "Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire"
However, global Empire is the cause of all 'issues', "symptom problems", and our entire "ailing social order".
Empires used to kill and slaughter people directly, but the 'new improved formula' of Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire kills our environment directly and kills humanity indirectly.
The "Crisis of Humanity" is global Empire as a disease, like cancer -- hidden unless properly diagnosed and treated.
As Zygmunt Bauman hauntingly puts it, “In the case of an ailing social order, the absence of an adequate diagnosis…is a crucial, perhaps decisive, part of the disease.”13
Berman, Morris 2011 "Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire"
Suzanne, I continue to say that the fossil fuel industry does not control or even initiate the conversation about Global Warming.
I invite you to come up and take a drive from Abilene or Midland, Texas on Interstates 20/10 to El Paso and you will readily see that it is the CONSUMER of the industry product that defines the conversation.
YES, demand decisive action by the American electorate and our government and stop harping on the fossil fuel industry - it is us and our government - we slow our consuming and the industry will have no choice but to slow production of their product. It's called supply and demand - we demand and they supply.
I invite you to come up and take a drive from Abilene or Midland, Texas on Interstates 20/10 to El Paso and you will readily see that it is the CONSUMER of the industry product that defines the conversation.
YES, demand decisive action by the American electorate and our government and stop harping on the fossil fuel industry - it is us and our government - we slow our consuming and the industry will have no choice but to slow production of their product. It's called supply and demand - we demand and they supply.