FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004 Status: offline
|
LaM, Without snarkiness, what you see in the discussion about the Greenland ice sheet is that for a few years, it had a rapid movement and calving. Now, that has stopped, and the ice is actually getting thicker. The conclusion is that glaciers move a lot faster at times then previously thought, based on several factors. The ice had reached a point that it was unstable, and moved and calved faster than had been seen before, but once it did, it returned to an earlier equilibrum. Making conclusions either way is dangerous, for the simple fact that we are just beginning to understand much of anything about how they behave. My links were to current - the latest, actually - scientific data about this fact. It doesn't invalidate earlier data, but it does change the conclusion that the Greenland ice sheets are "melting away". You didn't even bother to look at the links, I'd bet. One is to a layman's report in the New York Times. Another is to the actual article published in Science Magazine. What I have said before that I really take exception to is "true believers" refusing to consider that perhaps they have less than "perfect understanding". It's heresy to even look at data that doesn't support your conclusions. You claim to have made a deep study in the entire issue of "global warming", but you display all the signs of conclusions first, then find supporting data. Even the snarky way you provide the link above, with your air-of-superiority about paying for a subscription means to belittle and demean, as happens when a "true belief" is challenged. Since I don't have a digital subscription, I can't read the article. And that proves your point about the Greenland glaciers how, exactly? If you were really interested in the facts, and not the belief, then that's not what you would do. However, I did read the precis of the article. All it says is the IPCC has released their latest summary report in February. I've read and studied the summary report for policy makers. It gives conclusions, but not detailed backup data, so you can't evaluate the credibility of anything from it, although there are some things that bother me already. I am in the process of reviewing all of their earlier reports as well, but have not reached a conclusion, but I am a skeptic for the simple fact of how people like you are so dismissive, and seem to have an agenda. The Greenland glacier data that I gave you links to was not published before the IPC summary report. It will likely not be included in their detailed technical data. But it is true, nonetheless. If, after you reach a conclusion, data comes to light that affect that conclusion, a neutral person interested in truth would at the least be willing to reassess their conclusions. Not necessarily refute them, but at least consider the possibility that they didn't have sufficient accurate understanding of all of the factors at play. Is that the attitude you are displaying? FirmKY
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|