The worst kind of ugly climate propaganda: David Suzuki targets kids at Christmas in the name of climate change

Hey everyone lets do something to spite Dr Suzuki …
Tip jar at WUWT or climateaudit.org

Getting Warm says:
November 30, 2011 at 11:36 am
Like saying that the planet has been cooling recently when 9 of the last 10 years are among the hottest.

There’s no contradiction–both can be true. Imagine climbing to a tabletop mountain and then walking along its gently declining top. And the decline is getting steeper (see Smokey’s chart)–the warm is turning.

Getting Warm says:
November 30, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Arctic melting only speeds up warming and methane release.

It also speeds up the growth of shrubs and small trees, which provide shade and slow methane release (a negative feedback).

Stay dry. Recent conservative estimates are that Greenland melt will cause a half a meter rise by the end of the century.

Unlikely. Check out: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/new-study-shows-temperature-in-greenland-significantly-warmer-than-present-several-times-in-the-last-4000-years/
Here are some quotes on Greenland I’ve mined from previous WUWT threads:

“The volume of ice contained in the Greenland Ice Sheet is approximately 2.9 million cubic kilometers and the current rate whereby ice is lost is roughly 200 cubic kilometers per year. This is on the order of 0.1% by volume over 12 years.”
–Scott Polar Research Institute
—————–
Dave Wendt says:
October 26, 2011 at 11:32 am
Whenever we get a post on one of these hyperbolic PRs about Greenland “melting” I like to post a link to this site: http://tinyurl.com/yrdkl6
It’s an interactive map of global drought conditions from The Drought Monitor at UCL in the UK. Their timescales only go back 36 months, but I’ve been checking the site for almost 2 years and can attest that for almost 5 years the prevailing condition for Greenland has been for at least half of the island, and usually more, to be shown as experiencing severe to exceptional drought. In all that time I have only come across one of these opuses that even mentioned lack of replenishment as a possible contributor to whatever catastrophic ice loss they were pimping, and that mention was mostly an oh by the way aside.
—————-
Julienne Stroeve says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Between 1961 and 1990, a period in which the Greenland ice sheet was thought to be in relative balance, the annual accumulation on the ice sheet was approximately 700 Gt per year, balanced by roughly 220 Gt per year lost through runoff (Ettema et al., 2009) and another 480 Gt per year through solid ice discharge (Rignot et al., 2008). Since that time, the mass loss has accelerated (see recent paper by Rignot et al., 2011). The increase in mass loss is a result of enhanced surface melting (e.g. Abdalati and Steffen, 2001; Box et al., 2006; Tedesco et al., 2008; Fettweis et al., 2011; Tedesco et al., 2011), dynamic thinning along the ice sheet margins (Krabill et al., 2004; Pritchard et al., 2009) and increased ice discharge rates of outlet glaciers (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006; Luckman et al., 2006; Stearns and Hamilton, 2007; Howat et al., 2008).
Currently, Greenland is losing mass at about a rate of 150 Gt per year, or about one third of a millimetre of sea level rise per year. That means in the 12 year period from 1999 through 2011 that the Times Atlas analysed, meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet has contributed roughly 3 mm to global sea level rise – not one meter.
—————-
James Sexton says:
September 19, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Dr. Stroeve,
Have you guys figured out how much water would stay in both land masses if the ice were to ever melt? Most of Greenland’s ice sits on top of land 300 meters below sea level. And the lowest point in Antarctica is within the Bentley Subglacial Trench, which reaches ~ 2,555 meters below sea level.
—————
Johan van der Laan says:
May 23, 2010 at 2:11 am
I think, on the contrary, that it would be very weird if Greenland didn’t melt. Regions on the SAME latitude, like Finland, Siberia or Alaska have lost their iceshield many thousand years ago because of their continental climate (hot in the summerseason).
Greenland hastens after because of its surrounding seaclimate (cool summers), but will ultimately also lose most of its ice remnants of the glacial iceshield, if we stay in the interglacial era long enough. It’s too easy to blame AGW for the melting, it’s just postponed melting because of Greenlands cool seaclimate at its shores. Such an icy spot that far from the real pole is doomed to melt away. Nothing special. Only the speed of the melting will vary eventually with cold and warm periods, like the Little Iceage or the Medieval Warm Period. Probably is the melting on the peninsula of West Antarctica of the same order (also about 30 degrees from the real pole and in ‘seaclimate’.
As a consequence sealevel will rise a few inches this century. Again, nothing special.
—————-
kwik says:
May 23, 2010 at 3:12 am
One very typical AGW approach;
When someone says the vikings at Greenland prove that it was a warm-period “back then”, the AGW answer is; NO that was a LOCAL warming!
If the Greenland melts by 0.005% os something TODAY, its GLOBAL warming.
Already at that point, you realise, its a religion.
—————-
Espen says:
May 20, 2010 at 1:46 pm
nedhead: Greenland was warmer seventy years ago. This inconvenient truth was again ignored when some climate researcher told us on Norwegian TV a couple of hours ago that the melting of the Jakobshavn glacier was proof of global warming.
——————
Dave Wendt says:
May 23, 2010 at 3:04 pm
According to this Science paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5955/984
the total Greenland ice mass loss for 2000 to 2008 was 1500 Gt (166.66 Gt/yr).
Yet the loss rate in the final three years, 2006 to 2008, was 273 Gt/yr.
Hence, in 9 years, the ice mass loss accelerated by 273/166.66 = 1.638 times
Extrapolating this acceleration, we see every 9 years the mass loss will increase by a factor of 1.638.
The maps at the Drought Monitor site indicate that large parts of Greenland have been under severe to exceptional drought conditions for the best part of the last three years
http://drought.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/drought.html?map=%2Fwww%2Fdrought%2Fweb_pages%2Fdrought.map&program=%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmapserv&root=%2Fwww%2Fdrought2%2F&map_web_imagepath=%2Ftmp%2F&map_web_imageurl=%2Ftmp%2F&map_web_template=%2Fdrought.html
This would seem to indicate that lack of replenishment is a more likely culprit for the decline in mass balance, than enhanced melting. It seems a little unreasonable to project those drought conditions to persist and worsen for 150 years.
————–
A C Osborn says:
May 23, 2010 at 10:26 am
I am not sure if anyone else has posted this here, but The Hockey Schtick has just posted a study that completely refutes what the Satellites are finding, the ice is growing at 5.4 cm/yr.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/05/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-54-cmyr.html
——————-
Peter Miller says:
May 23, 2010 at 9:50 am
So Greenland is rising – how the heck can these satellites accurately measure the volume of its ice cap, if this factor is not taken into account?
Nobody seems to take into account precipitation patterns – this NOAA report indicates Greenland had below average precipitation for the years 1961-2001 (no subsequent data available). I suppose it is not too simplistic to assume that if the average precipitation falls in Greenland, then its glaciers will be seen to be melting as they are not having their normal annual recharge.
http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20precipitation.htm#Arctic%20annual%20precipitation%20change%201901-2000
—————–
janama says:
May 23, 2010 at 7:29 am
“Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland ’s ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth’s crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm

==========================================

GettingWarm says:
November 30, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Do I believe you or 100′s of respected scientists who have devoted their lives to studying the North and publicly publishing their science? Let me see???

I’ll see your 100 scientists and raise you Dr. Akasofu:

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Natural Science, Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010),
http://klimabedrag.dk/attachments/article/395/NS20101100004_10739704.pdf

Don’t forget, these hundreds and thousands of scientists who are thrown at us aren’t the ones who are involved in the nitty-gritty (climate physics and chemistry) of the matter. They are peripherally involved only, making claims like, “It’s warming here and I can see the proxy evidence” or, “IF it warms more, these dreadful things will or might happen here.” That doesn’t add much weight to the warmists’ argument:

Richard Betts, head of climate change impact at the Met Office:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/9/dangerous-climate-change.html
*I prefer to distinguish between “climate scientists” (who are mainly atmospheric physicists) and “climate change scientists” who seem to be just about anyone in science or social science that has decided to see what climate change means for their own particular field of expertise. While many of these folks do have a good grasp of climate science (atmospheric physics) and the uncertainties in attribution of past events and future projections, many sadly do not. “Climate change science” is unfortunately a rather disconnected set of disciplines with some not understanding the others – see the inconsistencies between WG1 and WG2 in IPCC AR4 for example. We are working hard to overcome these barriers but there is a long way to go.