Rain fell at the normally snowy summit of Greenland for the first time on record

  

Category:  Environment/Climate

Via:  hallux  •  4 weeks ago  •  74 comments

By:   Rachel Ramirez

Rain fell at the normally snowy summit of Greenland for the first time on record
For the first time on record, precipitation on Saturday at the summit of Greenland — roughly two miles above sea level — fell as rain and not snow.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



For the first time on record, precipitation on Saturday at the summit of Greenland — roughly two miles above sea level — fell as rain and not snow.

Temperatures at the Greenland summit over the weekend rose above freezing for the third time in less than a decade. The warm air fuelled an extreme rain event that dumped 7 billion tons of water on the ice sheet, enough to fill the Reflecting Pool at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., nearly 250,000 times.

It was the heaviest rainfall on the ice sheet since record keeping began in 1950, according to the   National Snow and Ice Data Center  in the U.S., and the amount of ice mass lost on Sunday was seven times higher than the daily average for this time of year.

Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, said this is evidence Greenland is warming rapidly.

"What is going on is not simply a warm decade or two in a wandering climate pattern," Scambos told CNN. "This is unprecedented."

The National Science Foundation's Summit Station is located at the highest point on the Greenland ice sheet, where scientists can observe Arctic weather and changes in the ice. The station has been staffed year-round to observe extreme changes since 1989. The majority of the weekend's rain fell from the southeast coast of Greenland up to the Summit Station.

Jennifer Mercer, program officer for the Office of Polar Programs at the National Science Foundation, said because of the significant rain event, operations at the Summit Station would need to change: "It means that we need to consider weather events that we have not had to deal with before in the history of our operations there," she told CNN.

"Increasing weather events including melting, high winds, and now rain, over the last 10 years have occurred outside the range of what is considered normal," Mercer said. "And these seem to be occurring more and more."

As human-caused climate change warms the planet, ice loss has rapidly increased. A   major UN climate report   released this month concluded that the burning of fossil fuels led to Greenland melting over the past two decades. A recent study published in the   journal Cryosphere   found Earth has lost a staggering 28 trillion tonnes of ice since the mid-1990s, a large portion of which was from the Arctic, including the Greenland ice sheet.

In July, the Greenland ice sheet experienced   one of the most significant melting events   in the past decade, losing more than 8.5 billion tons of surface mass in a single day, which was enough to submerge Florida in two inches of water. It was the third instance of extreme melting in the past decade, during which time the melting has stretched farther inland than the entire satellite era, which began in the 1970s.

In 2019, Greenland shed roughly   532 billion tons of ice   into the sea. During that year, an unexpectedly hot spring and a   July heat wave   caused almost the entire ice sheet's surface to begin melting. Global sea level rose permanently by 1.5 millimetres as a result.

"We are crossing thresholds not seen in millennia, and frankly this is not going to change until we adjust what we're doing to the air," said Scambos.

Other unusual events have become more frequent, too, Mercer said.

Two years ago, a polar bear made it to the Summit Station, which was unusual since polar bears live in coastal regions where they can easily find food. The bear had trekked several hundred miles inland across the ice sheet. In the last five years, Mercer said three polar bears have been sighted high on Greenland's ice sheet.

According to Mercer, the rain will have a lasting effect on the properties of the snow, leaving a crust of ice behind that will absorb more energy from the sun, until it gets buried by snow. Scambos said this crusty layer will also be a barrier that prevents the downward draining of melt water, which will then flood the surface of the ice sheet and initiate run off at higher elevations.

Because of the layer of ice it created, the weekend's rainfall event "will be visible in ice core records in the future," Mercer said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1  seeder  Hallux    4 weeks ago

Denial is a river in Greenland.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1    4 weeks ago

The US has recorded the hottest July since records have been kept.  

But there is no such thing as global warming/climate change jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Expert
1.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    4 weeks ago
But there is no such thing as global warming/climate change

That is NOT the issue here. A majority knows the climate is changing. What IS in play is whether or not man has any affect on it. See comment 2.3.1

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    4 weeks ago

There is absolutely no doubt what IS in play - man indeed has affected the climate BIG TIME.   To say otherwise is nonsense.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
What IS in play is whether or not man has any affect on it.

Yes, man certainly has an effect. It's naive to think that human activity which pours billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere yearly (increasingly so since the industrial revolution) does not have an effect.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

If you removed all of the roads alone, climate would change.

If you removed 6 billion people from the equation suddenly, the climate would change.

Remove 85% 0f the manufacturing over the past 200 hundred years, and climate would change.

Sure there were cycles in the past.

None had the assistance of 12billion people burning trash, sinking ships full of sarin gas or ddt

or worse, just plain old garbage from NYC.

Of course we have an affect, a negative affect.

Like a house infested with carpenter ants or termites who don't know any better,

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2  Sparty On    4 weeks ago

The key words here are "on record."

It's clearly not the first it's happened.   It's the first time man has recorded it.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @2    4 weeks ago

The hell with those climatologists and all their fancy lingo - we’ve got armchair quarterbacks like yourself to impart some real wisdom.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1    4 weeks ago

There is no doubt our climate is warming.   The debate is really about what's causing it.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

Well heck then, let’s not listen to the people whose lives revolve around the study of it.  They don’t know any more than that stupid doctor telling you to get that mole removed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
The debate is really about what's causing it.

There's really no debate. Except by deniers.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

Very true, deniers of what is causing it on both sides

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.5    4 weeks ago

Science shows what's causing it. Human activity in that cause is not insignificant. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.5    4 weeks ago

Freon.  Old freon12, freon 32 and freon 125 most recently freon 134 were terrible for the atmosphere but "professionals" released it or let it leak all the time for several generations.

Supposedly Puron is the answer, 409 or 410(?)

but I doubt it.  Too much shit all over the world.  Poison.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

Freon's with a high ODP (Ozone Depletion Potential)  like R12 & R11 have been banned for decades.   Although not all countries follow rules like that so good luck fixing them.

Never heard of R32 or R125.

Lots of greenhouse gas poison out there.   All humans emit it, every minute, of every day.   I've personally planted enough trees in my lifetime to more than offset my CO2 emissions.

How about you?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.8    4 weeks ago
Never heard of R32 or R125.

I've personally planted enough trees in my lifetime to more than offset my CO2 emissions. How about you?

Depends on which CO2 theory you accept.  The Spanish say each person emits two tons a year through eating.

Most believe it is closer to 2.3 lbs a day.

A mature tree can exchange 48 lbs of CO2 for oxygen annually.

So I doubt that the few dozen pines, crepe myrtles and magnolias I have planted offset my personal emissions.

On the other hand, instead of virtue signaling your tree planting skills, consider this. 

The food chain and all of the carbon in it is essentially a closed loop.

What adds CO2 to the atmosphere and upsets natures balance is burning fossil fuels.

Does the collective exhalation of carbon dioxide from all those people contribute significantly to global warming? No. Human beings do exhale almost three billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we're still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy.

Good advice, breathe easy.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

Ah, R32 is next generation and therefore isn't part of the problem like the others you mentioned.

So lets see, at last count we've planted roughly 50,000 trees over the years.   Mainly conifers spread over about 100 acres.   Times your 50 lbs/Yr yields about 2,500,000 lbs/Yr of CO2 sequestered by my hands.   Using your numbers of course.   So once again i ask you:

How are you doing in that regard?

The food chain and all of the carbon in it is essentially a closed loop. What adds CO2 to the atmosphere and upsets natures balance is burning fossil fuels.

Closed loop eh?   How does that square with accelerating population increase.   Still a closed loop?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
How does that square with accelerating population increase.

An increasing population will only make things worse.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
2.2  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @2    4 weeks ago

I'm sure Greenland will name a lake Sparty if you ask nicely.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @2.2    4 weeks ago
I'm sure Greenland will name a lake Sparty if you ask nicely.

No worries, that's the type of "sophomoric" response i've come to expect from you.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
2.2.2  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.1    4 weeks ago

Hang in there, I'm still a Freshman.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @2.2.2    4 weeks ago

Lol .... doubling down eh? ..... but that one is more believable from what i've seen here .....

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @2    4 weeks ago
"It's clearly not the first it's happened."

Since you know that for sure, please tell us exactly when it happened previously.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
2.3.1  bccrane  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3    4 weeks ago

Before the last ice age.

Prior to the ice ages the sea levels were higher than they are now, so if the next ice age is coming then the sea levels will rise before it happens, thus the ice sheets of Greenland need to melt and become part of the ocean as well as some of the ice in the Antarctic.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  bccrane @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

Thank you for the assist.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  bccrane @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

Vas you dere, Sharley?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  bccrane @2.3.1    4 weeks ago

That makes sense to me

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.4    4 weeks ago

He didn't say it rained.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.5    4 weeks ago

You're right he didn't

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
2.3.7  bccrane  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.5    4 weeks ago

You're right I didn't say it rained on that mountain, but with the ice sheets gone it more than likely sharley did with the warm Atlantic current going by into the Arctic Ocean.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
2.3.8  seeder  Hallux  replied to  bccrane @2.3.7    4 weeks ago

That warm Atlantic current is coming to a stop.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
2.3.9  bccrane  replied to  Hallux @2.3.8    4 weeks ago

Maybe, might be, could be.  Are they even sure that the Atlantic ocean current is driven by heat or is it because of the Earth's rotation in two gravity wells of the sun and the moon.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.4  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @2    4 weeks ago
It's the first time man has recorded it.

It's the first time man has caused climate change  AGW is happening much faster than a  Milankovitch cycle would cause and this is the first time it will destroy humans and our infrastructure.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.4.1  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @2.4    4 weeks ago
It's the first time man has caused it 

See there's the rub .... saying that man has "caused it."   That is disingenuous and is simply not true.

Man is contributing to it, perhaps even making it accelerate faster but mankind, by itself, is not causing it.

THAT .....  is a scientific fact.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.4.2  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @2.4.1    4 weeks ago

The Earth should actually be cooling slightly due to Milankovitch cycles.

Anthropogenic effects are the sole cause of the current global warming.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.4.3  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @2.4.2    4 weeks ago
The Earth should actually be cooling slightly due to Milankovitch cycles. Anthropogenic effects are the sole cause of the current global warming.

Historically Milankovitch cycles have varied to a large degree.

It is not scientifically provable beyond a reason doubt that any variations right now are being 100% anthropogenically driven.   Only that there is a anthropogenic component involved.

To say so is once again, disingenuous and misleading.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
2.4.4  bccrane  replied to  cjcold @2.4.2    4 weeks ago
The Earth should actually be cooling slightly due to Milankovitch cycles.

Milankovitch made the assumption that an Ice Age means the earth's climate was colder and set about using the earths distance, timing of the distance, and tilt to explain the cooling.  I will get flack for this, but here it goes, Milankovitch was wrong.  Milankovitch was trying to create the conditions for an Ice Age except for 1) the energy needed to  lift that much water into the atmosphere to create the huge ice sheets and 2) the sea level rise prior to the ice ages which would mean a warmer climate not colder.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.4.5  cjcold  replied to  bccrane @2.4.4    4 weeks ago

Milankovitch cycles are actually fairly weak effectors that only kick start changes in atmospheric CO2 content which really does all of the heavy lifting.

It is now, and has always been about the CO2 and it doesn't take much of a change in any planetary condition to kick off global climate change.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.6  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.4.1    4 weeks ago
saying that man has "caused it."   That is disingenuous and is simply not true.

How so?

Man is contributing to it, perhaps even making it accelerate faster but mankind, by itself, is not causing it.

Tomato, tomatoe! Regardless of the "cause," climate change is real and humans are the primary factor in that change.

THAT .....  is a scientific fact.

Cite the science! Science tends to support the cause of climate change to be attributed to humans. So does Live Science

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.4.7  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @2.4.6    3 weeks ago
How so?

Because Anthropogenic effects are NOT the ONLY cause of global warming today.   That is widely accepted in the scientific community Gordy.   You know that and if you don't, you should if you're really interested in this topic.

Tomato, tomatoe! Regardless of the "cause," climate change is real and humans are the primary factor in that change.

What you need to get past here Gordy is that man in not the only cause of global warming

 

Cite the science! Science tends to support the cause of climate change to be attributed to humans. So does Live Science

See above

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.8  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @2.4.7    3 weeks ago
Because Anthropogenic effects are NOT the ONLY cause of global warming today.   That is widely accepted in the scientific community Gordy.   You know that and if you don't, you should if you're really interested in this topic.

Read what I said: "climate change is real and humans are the primary factor in that change." Not once did I say humans are the only cause. Humans are the most significant cause. That is what the scientific community says, as my citations support,, and which have offered nothing to refute it! 

What you need to get past here Gordy is that man in not the only cause of global warming

Point out specifically where I sad man was the "ONLY" cause! 

See above

See what?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    4 weeks ago

I find it unusual that we're getting so much rain in Arkansas during August. August is typically one of our driest months

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

I've been saying for years that a smart move would be to invest in real estate in Greenland.  Trump may be an asshole, but he wasn't stupid to want to buy Greenland. 

Here's why Trump wants to buy Greenland - CNBC

https:// www.cnbc.com /2019/08/21/heres-why- trump ...
Aug 21, 2019  · President Donald   Trump   has floated the idea of   buying Greenland   multiple times. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has called the notion “absurd.”
 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

An "extreme" rain event amounts to how many inches over what size area?

Ice, being essentially clear, wouldn't absorb any more energy from the sun than freshly fallen snow. Below a few feet down it's all solid ice which inhibits drainage.

1.5 mm equals 0.0590551 inches.  Average annual sea level rise is about 3.6 mm per year or 0.14 inches.

Little can or will be done to reduce greenhse gas amounts. The climate will continue to warm until the next ice age begins. Prepare for it's effects.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
5.1  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @5    4 weeks ago

Ice is rarely clear, it is embedded with gas bubbles.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Hallux @5.1    4 weeks ago

Bubbles are transparent.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
6  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

It snowed last night on Berthoud Pass

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
6.1  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @6    4 weeks ago

No wonder they put a winter park up there.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @6    4 weeks ago

It's settled then.  Humans have had absolutely no effect on the climate whatsoever.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
6.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @6.2    4 weeks ago

Humans might be a minor contributor to global warming,

but  they can't stop it 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.1    4 weeks ago
Humans might be a minor contributor to global warming,

I'd say much more than merely "minor."

but  they can't stop it 

We should at least try.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
6.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.2    4 weeks ago

What should we do? What actions should be taken?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.3    4 weeks ago
What should we do? What actions should be taken?

Outside of a drastic reduction in population, continue current trends like utilizing alternative energy sources, recycling, better resource management, research and development on more efficient technologies, ect.. Those are not unreasonable things to achieve. If everyone chipped in a little to do their part, the cumulative effect would be quite significant. But a defeatist or pessimistic attitude will accomplish nothing!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
6.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.4    4 weeks ago

I'm just being realistic.

A substantial reduction of greenhouse gasses would require worldwide cooperation and a vast decrease in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas....still relatively cheap sources of energy.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.4    4 weeks ago
But a defeatist or pessimistic attitude will accomplish nothing!

True but neither does an unrealistic attitude.

When you find a way to curtail gas emissions from the largest emitters in the world you can talk to me.   China emits more CO2 than the next three highest emitting countries combined.   I have no problem with common sense reductions of greenhouse gas emissions here in the US but until you get big players like China to buy in.   You are just trying to push a rope.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.5    4 weeks ago

Certainly not in places like China that's for sure.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.6    4 weeks ago
True but neither does an unrealistic attitude.

More efficient use of resources, alternative energy sources, improving technology, ect., is unrealistic to you?

When you find a way to curtail gas emissions from the largest emitters in the world you can talk to me.   China emits more CO2 than the next three highest emitting countries combined. 

Note how I said if everyone did their part, the effect would be significant? Of course it will require a global effort. But just because some nations are not doing enough on their parts is no excuse for everyone else to not do their part.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.5    4 weeks ago
A substantial reduction of greenhouse gasses would require worldwide cooperation and a vast decrease in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas

Yes it would.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.2.10  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.8    4 weeks ago

No, your expectations are unrealistic.  

First that the largest emitters will comply and become part of the solution and second that changes are getting pushed too fast.   Case in pint.   A city near me made a proclamation to be on 100% renewable energy by 2025.   They made this proclamation in 2019.   Great goal but a totally unrealistic time-frame.

Besides 100% renewable energy is a pipe dream in our time.   70-80%?   Maybe but 100% will never happen until someone invents the Mr Fusion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.10    4 weeks ago
No, your expectations are unrealistic.  

What exactly is unrealistic? Especially since they are all currently in use to varying degrees.

First that the largest emitters will comply and become part of the solution and second that changes are getting pushed too fast. 

An unrealistic time frame does not equate to unrealistic methods. Sudden, drastic changes are unlikely. So baby steps need to be taken to reach the end result, which is what matters.

Besides 100% renewable energy is a pipe dream in our time.   70-80%?  

Renewables supplement current energy productions and usage, thereby reducing the use and associated pollution of fossil fuels. See, baby steps.

Maybe but 100% will never happen until someone invents the Mr Fusion.

I mentioned the need to develop newer and/or more efficient technologies. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.2.12  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2.11    3 weeks ago
What exactly is unrealistic? Especially since they are all currently in use to varying degrees.

It's unrealistic to expect that some of the largest CO2 producers in the world, China, Russian, India, etc to take the same serious steps at reducing their carbon footprint as the US is willing to do.    That has been shown again and again.   Such an endeavor costs money, lots of it and not every country is willing to spend it like we are.

An unrealistic time frame does not equate to unrealistic methods. Sudden, drastic changes are unlikely. So baby steps need to be taken to reach the end result, which is what matters.

And yet, uninformed folks think they become informed by reading an article in a magazine and presto chango, we need 100% renewable energy.   That .... is unrealistic and uniformed 

Renewables supplement current energy productions and usage, thereby reducing the use and associated pollution of fossil fuels. See, baby steps.

Lol .... i don't need to be preached to about baby steps.   I clearly support baby steps.   What i don't support is unrealistic super giant steps.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2.13  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.12    3 weeks ago
It's unrealistic to expect that some of the largest CO2 producers in the world, China, Russian, India, etc to take the same serious steps at reducing their carbon footprint as the US is willing to do.   

We can't control what other countries do. We can only do our own part and try to convince other countries with evidence what climate change will do.

And yet, uninformed folks think they become informed by reading an article in a magazine and presto chango, we need 100% renewable energy. 

I don't anyone who says that. Renewables are good. I doubt that is in question. But converting our entire energy production and infrastructure to support renewables is unrealistic. Unless a renewable source of energy like fusion power can be efficiently and cost effectively utilized.

I clearly support baby steps.   What i don't support is unrealistic super giant steps.

As do I. You want to talk realistic? Well baby steps is realistic and doable.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
7  Tacos!    4 weeks ago
an extreme rain event that dumped 7 billion tons of water on the ice sheet

That’s a strange way of expressing it. No one knows what that means. People know rain measured in inches, not tons of water.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
7.1  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 weeks ago

Around 9 cubic feet of water equals 1 ton, so 63 billion cubic feet of water in total ... or as the article explains 250,000 Washington Mall reflecting pools.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
7.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Hallux @7.1    4 weeks ago

How many shot glasses is that, I wonder?

Would it really be so hard to just say how many inches of rain fell? That is the standard way we report and understand rainfall.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

It is, but one can convert cubic feet to inches. You can covert tons (weight) to gallons (volume) if you're talking about water. A gallon of water weighs 8.43 lbs.

When I took exams to get a water operator's license these were conversions that I had to know to pass the exam.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
7.1.3  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    4 weeks ago
How many shot glasses is that, I wonder?

My calculator doesn't have enough digits ... let's go with several quadzillion.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.2  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 weeks ago
That’s a strange way of expressing it.

It sure is.   An inch of rain is not a volumetric measurement until you multiply it by the area that it fell on

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
7.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sparty On @7.2    4 weeks ago

Call me cynical, but my gut tells me it’s being expressed that way so as to panic the reader. Like, “Wow! That’s a lot of water!”

But if you just said 6” of rain fell last week, that wouldn’t impress anyone. 

I mean, whatever the amount was, it’s obviously significant because it normally snows there, it doesn’t rain. They should have left it at that, but this monkeying around with the volume of water smacks of someone trying to pull a fast one. This kind of thing is why people don’t trust science news.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.1    4 weeks ago
Call me cynical, but my gut tells me it’s being expressed that way so as to panic the reader.

Yep, could be but it didn't start that way.   It's just an easier measure for people to understand and really, quite informative in that regard.   It's when people start trying to "gin up"  the numbers to push this narrative or that when it starts getting hinky.

I mean, seven billions tons of water?   Now that IS scary.    Creative writing gold stars all around ...... jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
8  bccrane    4 weeks ago

This rain event, does anyone know what caused it?  I guess I could look, but won't have the time until tonight.

Could it have been remnants of a tropical system/storm that made it's way that far north directly into Greenland?  If that is so then yeah we never recorded it before  and may not again for a thousand years.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  bccrane @8    4 weeks ago

That's a good answer, but why did to make its way that far north? Maybe because the oceans are very warm and lifted that tropical storm all the way up practically to the North Pole?

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
8.1.1  bccrane  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    4 weeks ago

I tried to get any weather pattern information, but couldn't come up with anything going that far back, 6 days now.  It could have been a high pressure ridge blocking the systems normally easterly trek causing it to ride up the west side of the ridge north into Greenland, a weather pattern fluke.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Kavika
1stwarrior
CB
Freefaller
zuksam


21 visitors