

Satellites see Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt - anigbrowl
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-217

======
cpr
Near the very end:

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once
every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is
right on time," said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the
research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe
melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

Makes it a bit less scary. I think this is called burying the lede. ;-)

~~~
genki
I wonder about the article title, too. How do they justify calling it
"unprecedented" when they clearly state there's a precedent (melting events
every 150 years on average)? Seems disingenuous at best.

~~~
Smudge
Hard to say for sure with the information provided. While there is evidence
that this has happened before, this degree of melting in such a short span of
time is certainly "unprecedented" for as long as we've been observing, and it
may well be a different kind of event than that which caused 1889's melting.

Either way, could use plenty of clarification.

~~~
krautsourced
Still, the title is really misleading, even though it may be true in a very,
very narrow sense. Tbh. I think someone just went overboard there. The problem
of course is that we just don't know. We have our models, but they are all
built on assumptions that can change any day. Some say that long term
predictions are much more reliable than short term ones (aka. the weather
forecast), yet still we are constantly surprised by climate events. The
article itself is quite nice, so why fear mongering title (and I'm not even
speaking about the HN title, that one is just completely misleading).

~~~
justsee
Yes, the title certainly is misleading based on that final paragraphs. However
considering we have numerous alarming data points across the globe in 2012
related to climate ([http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-
warmings-te...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-
terrifying-new-math-20120719)) perhaps that context means events like this are
viewed in a more pessimistic fashion.

The sentiment you express: that we don't know for sure, our models are not
fool-proof etc is a very particular, unscientific line of reasoning pumped out
to convince the layman that there is no real scientific consensus, which is
simply false. There is scientific consensus, climate scientists never state
that the test for scientific theories is 100% certainty, nor do they claim
their models are completely accurate (every model is wrong to a degree, by
definition!)

The climate scientists and meteorologists in my family have moved on from
debating with people now, seeing it as about as valuable as arguing about
gravity with someone.

It feels like the 'global warming conspiracy' is the '9/11 was an inside job
conspiracy' for right-wingers: [http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/395940_8421...](http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg)
Both utterly absurd to the core.

~~~
ekianjo
"There is scientific consensus"...

No, there is not. Of you have been sleeping for a few years, then. Many
scientists have come out in the recent past to stand against the "global
warming" theory.

It is nothing like gravity where we can clearly experiment and it's
predictable. Climate change is no way certain nor predictable, and anyone who
pretends otherwise is either a fool or an ignorant. Climate models are based
on so much data (standard variation is HUGE) that you cannot even draw a line
without being laughed at by a statistician.

~~~
paradoja
Yes there is.

Could you name one major scientific institution related to climate science
that dispute anthropogenic climate change?

~~~
jff
Major scientific institutions don't get funding for saying "Things seem to be
going ok right now", they get funding for saying "Things are screwed up,
here's why, and we think we can fix it". I say this as someone who works at a
major scientific institution.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
We have an Institute for Creation Research [1]. There is plenty of funding for
anti-climate change research. It's just not producing anything. That should
give a hint as to where reality lies amidst interests.

[1] <http://www.icr.org/>

~~~
jeltz
I doubt that funding is even a tiny fraction of the research money from
governments. And in addition it is money that might taint your reputation for
future research funding rounds.

This is true in many areas of research. If you want funding there are certain
opinions and buzzwords you should include when applying for funding.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
The point is that if those idiots can get funding the claim that one must toe
the party line to attract funds is seriously impaired.

------
vosper
Note that were are talking about _some_ degree of melting occurring over 97%
of the surface of the ice sheet, not that 97% of the area previously covered
in ice has melted, which is how I read the title.

From the article: "Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin,
low-lying coastal edges to its 2-mile-thick (3.2-kilometer) center,
experienced some degree of melting at its surface"

edit: poor grammar

------
ekianjo
A NASA link with a graph without any reference/legend whatsoever (it's easy to
manipulate data by playing with colors and putting a threshold in white and
another in red, but if we dont know exactly what is means it's just like snake
oil marketing), this is very disappointing for a agency that is supposed to
produce science. This is tabloid level.

~~~
sdfasdfsdf
There is a legend.

'In the image, the areas classified as "probable melt" (light pink) correspond
to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The
areas classified as "melt" (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three
satellites detected surface melting.'

While I do feel that the use of the word "unprecedented" was not warranted
(and should be criticized), the rest of the article is fine.

------
five_star
This news is a bit frightening. I believe this is the result of intense global
warming.

------
DigitalSea
This scares me. I know it's only the surface that thawed, but what happens
when more than the surface melts next time around? How long can people keep
denying the Earth is warming before lower-level coastal regions start to
flood?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Mission accomplished.

The article also states that this happens every 150 years or so and did so 150
years ago. Like winter comes every 12 months. Now it would be wonderful to
understand the mechanism, we've only been watching via satellite for 30 years,
so in another 150 years we'll have captured a full cycle on satellite and we
will know a lot more. It would have been a much more reasonable article to
say:

"For the first time NASA has captured a once in 150 year event on satellite
images. ..." but you still might click the link but you wouldn't feel
threatened.

~~~
Retric
_Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once
every 150 years on average_

It's not a 150 year cycle, it's a random event with a low probability. AKA
0.66% per year ~ 10 events per 1500 years but 3 of them could have fallen
within 10 years of each other.

------
bobds
I believe there is climate change, there always is. The idea that we are the
sole cause or that we have the power to stop it, seems a little absurd.

The best thing I've read on the topic:

<http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm>

"Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) -Study the data and reach your own
conclusions!"

~~~
lmm
>I believe there is climate change, there always is. The idea that we are the
sole cause or that we have the power to stop it, seems a little absurd.

There are a lot of us, and we've been pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere
for a long time. Things like the ozone hole or the long-term deforestation of
Europe show that humanity is very capable of making substantial changes to the
global climate.

~~~
bobds
We've created a lot of problems, yes. We need more energy, more food, more
clean water. We need to clean up our soils, we need to plant some new forests.

The focus on cutting CO2 emissions seems misplaced.

~~~
lmm
Have you any idea what the effects of a 10m rise in global sea levels would
be? There are plenty of problems for humanity to deal with, but few more
important or urgent than that.

------
calinet6
Is this debate really happening on HN? Really guys?

------
anewguy
It's fascinating to see how supposedly objective institutions are invested in
selling environmentalist panic. The greens have certainly won the PR battle.

~~~
justsee
Your sentiment seems to echo this: [http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/395940_8421...](http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/395940_842169154111_1010664_37712606_1688554057_n1.jpg)

~~~
guylhem
Considering was called Greenland by the Vikings who also named Nova Scotia
"Vinland" because grape vines grew there, would it be more likely to you that
some alarmist scientists would defends their jobs and salaries by giving
overperssimistic claims, and that the rest would have to follow the game or
become irrelevant in the publish-or-perish world?

Just like a lemon market, except driven by fear?

I remember reading somewhere (Richard Feymann maybe?) about the initial mass
or charge of some particle, an electron maybe, being far away from the truth
and leading to a suppression of the publication of any "dissident" results -
including a much better estimate that followed.

The scientific process took care of that by publishing revised estimates, just
slightly lower and lower, until the number reached the initially conflicting
estimation, but this took some time.

I do not claim to have any opinion on climate change - except to notice that a
side is giving alarmist claims, which can not be disproved, or when they can
and are, which are adjusted by an ad-hoc theory. From global freezing in the
70s to global warming, and now "climate change". And that the other side is
giving different results and seems to be more cautious in its process, because
it is facing an uphill battle like anyone who would have published a
significantly lower mass.

That does not win merit points with what I know about epistemology.

~~~
fl3tch
Unlike oil company executives, zero climate scientist salaries depend on
global warming being true. That's just not how or why academic researchers get
paid. They push the "agenda" because that's the model the data supports.

~~~
anamax
> zero climate scientist salaries depend on global warming being true. That's
> just not how or why academic researchers get paid. They push the "agenda"
> because that's the model the data supports.

The ClimateGate e-mails show otherwise. They show the warmist mafia conspiring
to spike publication of contrary research.

If you can't get published, you don't get very far in academia.

And then there's the whole "I won't share my data because they'll use it to
try to prove me wrong" thing.

~~~
lusr
I skimmed through the rather extensive write-up at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)
and could find _zero_ evidence to support your claims of a "warmist mafia"
conspiring to "spike publication of contrary research".

The only conspiracy I _do_ see in that write-up consists of sensationalist
self-proclaimed experts, scientifically illiterate pundits and talking heads
providing an illusion of controversy where none exists so that people like you
tune in to their message and generate ad revenues and fat bonus pay-checks.

 _Honestly_ which do you believe is more likely - a vast global conspiracy of
climatologists are swindling the public, people who have to publish models
and/or data to support their claims, with all it taking is one honest
scientist to expose them as frauds (withholding data as you point out does
happen, but this affects the support their claims receive)... or a bunch of
charismatic talking heads with zero science education or interest are hyping
things up because they know, as an absolute and incontrovertible fact, that
doing so generates revenue, votes, etc. from the conspiracy crowd?

I doubt all scientists are honest, but the proportion of scientists that are
honest vs. the proportion of talking heads that are honest makes it pretty
obvious where to look for a real conspiracy. It takes one scientist to expose
a fraud definitively, but no amount of evidence seems to persuade a talking
head to shut up as long as there's enough conspiracy theorists paying their
salary and their master's profits.

------
ktizo
Oops. I wonder if this pattern of heat domes will continue for the rest of the
summer and what their frequency is. By the end of the year it might no longer
be as unusual.

~~~
rosser
Per TFA, this isn't actually all that unusual. Core samples suggest it happens
about every 150 years or so, with the last occurrence in the late 19th
Century. Indeed, one of the scientists in the article says, "this event is
right on time."

~~~
Smudge
Still, I wish they'd provide a bit more information. Do we know what kind of
event likely caused 1889's melting? Would it, similarly, have happened in such
short a span of time, or due to a similar weather event? It's still hard to
dismiss as "normal" when there are so many unanswered questions.

