Those silly Scientists, just keep doing their silly Science.
Earlier this year, climatologist Ellen Mosley-Thompson led an expedition to drill into glacial ice on the Antarctic Peninsula, one of the world’s fastest-warming regions.
Mosley-Thompson: For the glaciologists, one of the critical things that they wanted to examine closely was — and still is — since the 2002 break up, how much more rapidly are the land-based glaciers discharging ice out into the ocean. Some measurements back in 2004 based upon satellite imagery suggested some of those glaciers increased their flow speed by 4 to 8 times. Because if the ice shelf is gone, then you’ve lost that buttressing effect. And so the question really is how much additional ice is being dumped through those major glaciers?
e360: And, the glaciers whose motion to the sea is being accelerated because the ice shelf [like Larsen B] isn’t holding them back, that leads to direct sea level rises?
Mosley-Thompson: That’s correct.
But of course there's more ... those Scientists just LOVE to Gossip!
Unlocking Secrets from the Ice In a Rapidly Warming Region
May 04, 2010: Interview [Yale Environment 360]
When the ice cores return to Ohio State in June, Mosley-Thompson and her colleagues hope to analyze the ice to track the history of climate change for thousands of years, perhaps to the last glacial period and beyond.
But even before she analyzes her latest drilling samples, Mosley-Thompson tells Yale Environment 360 senior editor Fen Montaigne, one thing is clear: the retreat of the world’s glaciers, coupled with evidence from other Antarctic ice cores showing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at their highest levels in more than 800,000 years, "tells us very clearly that we have a serious problem."
e360: I understand that the Dome C record shows very clearly that we’ve got more CO2 in our atmosphere now than at any time in 800,000 years.
Mosley-Thompson: Oh yeah. Very clearly. If you look back over the eight glacial/interglacial cycles, [ppm] and we’re at about 389 now.
[ppb], and I think we’re at about 1,700 parts per billion. So we’re clearly outside the range of natural variability.
I personally think that graph simply showing the natural fluctuations in those two important greenhouse gases, over almost a million years of Earth history — and then you see the two dots (today) that are so much higher than anything that we see in that near-million history — tells us very clearly that we have a serious problem.
Can anyone say -- Where is that 800,000 year Chart?
I couldn't find it. I'll post it, if I do --
Meanwhile post em, if you got em.
As the Hit Parade, continues with this little noticed, Science News Nugget:
Scientists say Earth could get too hot for humans
CTV.ca News Staff -- May 09 2010
New research theorizes that if global warming continues at its current pace, Earth's temperatures could exceed livable limits for humans in the future.
Scientists at Purdue University and the University of New South Wales calculated the highest possible "wet bulb" temperature that humans can withstand and found that this temperature could be exceeded in future climate scenarios.
"Wet bulb" temperature is meant to simulate what is felt by wet skin when it meets moving air, taking into account measures such as humidity. In order for a person's cooling process to work, the surrounding air must be cooler than the skin, which must be cooler than the person's core body temperature.
, metabolic heat cannot be released by the body, which can lead to heat stress.
Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences Matthew Huber co-authored the paper which appears in the May 6 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
He says researchers have calculated for about six hours before succumbing to a lethal level of heat stress.
The researchers said while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates global warming to increase mean temperatures by about 3 degrees C, warming of up to 12 degrees C is possible.
"We found that , and a (12-degrees C) warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment," Huber said.
"When it comes to evaluating the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."
I hate to post and run (well not really)
but what I could add in commentary here,
would pale in comparison to what these Scientists just said.
Their Numbers kind of speak for themselves ...
Recently "freed" interior Antarctic Glaciers are moving 4 to 8x times faster.
Were outside of the Natural Variability of the last 800,000 years!
CO2: 389 ppm vs the million year norm of 300 ppm.
Methane: 1700 ppb vs the million year norm of 800 ppm
35 C will make nature's Human cooling system impossible.
Predicted 4 to 12 C temp increases, could put 50% of Humanity in that "die-off" heat zone.
It's very like much Russian Roulette indeed.
With Stakes this HIGH, can we afford NOT to listen to Climate Scientists,
one day longer?
Of course not, but of many will anyways ... cuz,
Stats are for kids, silly wabbits!
(3 out of 5 Skeptics agree.)