Here is the real answer- It's a two step; Item #1- Forced birth control for every living human on the planet- Item #2- kill every human who resists Item one!
What did I just write!? did I really put that out there for everyone to read? Sure- But, as you all know, it's really what the control freaks are talking about in their bottom line. They just don't want to say it. Instead, they think by controlling the amount of energy each person can use and the amount of food each person can get, they will achieve the end result anyway. But, they probably suspect by now, they are running out of time. In another 25 years, those third and fourth worlders are going to be demanding- taking! - their fair share- they want cars and gasoline and huge flat screen TVs too- and all the electricity their little mud huts can take- and air conditioning, and fresh water and- well, everything you have, they will demand and in their billions, they will have it or die trying to get it.
Obviously, they can not be allowed to have it. If they get it, everyone will die - and die horribly! But, if they keep grabbing at it, what the H are the advanced, techno-nations going to do about it? Pretty soon, I suspect, the Greenies will be pushed aside for the idiots they really are and the evil "Nazi" realists will take over (Or more likely, the "Greenies" will morph into the "Evil Nazis"- they are morally equipped for the role)- and when they do, I think the blank above will be properly filled out- in bold print with an exclamation mark! Ten years after that- problem solved! And the whole dirty, crazy business of being humans can start over again.
The 2012 summer witnessed the largest ice loss ever in Greenland since scientists started recording melt rates there in 1979, and new research indicates that clouds might be the cause.
Charles Q. Choi, OurAmazingPlanet.com via The Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 2013
[SIZE=1]Extent of surface melt over Greenlandís ice sheet on July 8, 2012
(left) and July 12, 2012 (right) based on data from three satellites.
(Light pink: probable melt, meaning at least one satellite showed
melt; dark pink: melt, meaning two to three satellites[/SIZE] [/CENTER]
The culprit behind the record-shattering level of ice melting in Greenland in 2012 may have been low, thin clouds, new research suggests.
These novel findings, detailed in the April 4 issue of the journal Nature, may help answer climate mysteries elsewhere in the Arctic, the researchers said.
If the sheet of ice covering Greenland were to completely melt, such destruction of 720,000 cubic miles (3 million cubic kilometers) of ice would raise global sea levels by 24 feet (7.3 meters). In summer 2012, Greenland saw an extraordinarily large amount of melting across nearly its entire ice sheet. In fact, it was the largest ice melt seen in Greenland since scientists began tracking melt rates there in 1979. Ice-core records suggest melting events so extreme have only happened once every 150 years or so over the past 4,000 years.
"The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor," said study researcher Dave Turner, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "We show that low-level clouds were instrumental in pushing temperatures up above freezing."
Turner and his colleagues discovered the role these clouds played by analyzing temperature data from the ICECAPS experiment run at Summit Station atop the Greenland Ice Sheet at about 10,500 feet (3,200 m) above sea level. Melting occurred even all the way up there on July 11, 2012. [Images of Melt: Earth's Vanishing Ice]
The idea that low clouds might help melt ice might seem mistaken at first, since they usually reflect solar energy back into space. (Cloudy days tend to be cooler than sunny ones.) However, the research team's computer models suggest these clouds can be both thin enough to allow sunlight to pass through to heat the surface and thick enough to trap thermal radiation emitted upward by the surface. (This thermal radiation is a form of light but comes in longer wavelengths than visible light and is invisible to the human eye. The Earth's surface absorbs the sun's rays and then re-emits this thermal radiation.)
Climate models often underestimate the occurrence of these clouds, thus limiting their ability to predict Arctic climate change and other phenomena. This new research suggests this kind of cloud is present about 30 percent to 50 percent of the time over both Greenland and across the Arctic, said Ralf Bennartz, lead author of the study and an atmospheric physicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
More observations needed
"A very narrow range of cloud thickness allows for amplification of surface warming," Bennartz told OurAmazingPlanet. "This shows how well we have to understand individual components of the climate system, such as clouds, in order to accurately understand the system as a whole."
More observations are key to a better understanding of these components, he added.
"We need to continue detailed observational studies at Summit Station in Greenland in order to better understand processes leading to melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and help improve the representation of these processes in global climate models," Bennartz said.
(from o6^) "[*******#333333]If the [/COLOR]sheet of ice covering Greenland[*******#333333] were to completely melt, such destruction of 720,000 cubic miles (3 million cubic kilometers) of ice would [/COLOR]raise global sea levels[*******#333333] by 24 feet (7.3 meters). In summer 2012, Greenland saw an [/COLOR]extraordinarily large amount of melting[*******#333333] across nearly its entire ice sheet. In fact, it was the largest ice melt seen in Greenland since scientists began tracking melt rates there in 1979. Ice-core records suggest melting events so extreme have only happened once every 150 years or so over the past 4,000 years."
So, it has happened in the past, naturally, without humans smoking the planet up, and it was just about due- since I doubt the scientists have been tracking the melt for much more than 150 years. So, nothing to get excited about. Yet.[/COLOR]
Sadly, I was suspended for hotlinking an image in this post, so I'll repost the original post without the image.
[*******#333333]Quotes can be misconstrued, comments taken out of context and statements misinterpreted.[/COLOR]
[*******#333333]Again, the ice-age scare of the 70's was entirely media based, the gulf-stream scare of the early 2000's was entirely media based, and many more. Seriously, newspapers are no scientific studies. There are only a couple of direct quotes from scientists, most of whom are not even climatologists. For instance, Carl Sagan. He had no more credentials in climatology than I have. The only "real" climatologist I could find was the last quote by Dr. David Barber.[/COLOR]
[*******#333333]He said this: [/COLOR][*******#FF0000][FONT=Times New Roman]"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],"[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#333333]Now here comes the fun thing, the article itself mentions that this is specifically referring to "first year ice", i.e. ice that formed during the winter, not multiple year old ice.[/COLOR]
[*******#000000][FONT=arial]Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice—thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#000000][FONT=arial]"While much of the first-year ice melts in the summer, not all of it does, so we can't be sure it will melt at the Pole," he said. "We also don't know what the winds will be like this summer, and they play an important role in determining just what parts of the Arctic Ocean are ice-free."[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#000000][FONT=arial]Recent models suggest that the [/FONT][/COLOR]Arctic won't see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030[*******#000000][FONT=arial].[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#333333]Nobody ever suggested that the entire north-pole would be free of ice in 2008, they just spoke about the possibility, should the massive 2007 melting happen again, that the freshly frozen ice around the immediate north-pole could melt.[/COLOR]
[*******#333333]This is what they were talking about, notice how the average thickness of 2008 ice is significantly lower, especially around the north-pole.[/COLOR]
I won't adress the rest of your post as you went to crazy-land in the second half of your post.
Once again Human emissions are over 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions combined.
Greenland, sattelite measurements... Khhmm, I would write long, but it's irrelevant here. Clouds and measurements don't combine...
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/Arctic sea ice extent in March 2013 averaged 15.04 million square kilometers (5.81 million square miles). This is 710,000 kilometers (274,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent, and 610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which happened in 2006. Continuing a trend in recent winters, ice extent was near or below average levels throughout most of the Arctic, with the exception of higher extent in the Bering Sea.
Actually the ice levels are starting to recover: the process which will continue to the next decade...
It pays to read what is posted before responding to it. First, the CSM is not the source of the article. The source is OurAmazingPlanet.com. And second, science reporting mags are not "expert in science". They are reporters, not scientists. They are merely reporting on what actual scientific researchers, who are the experts, are doing. *>obvious<*
If you had bothered to read the article (which you clearly did not), you would have seen this:The source is a NOAA research scientist talking about his study."The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor," said study researcher Dave Turner, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "We show that low-level clouds were instrumental in pushing temperatures up above freezing."