skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 You're full of bullsh*t. DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRESHWATER & SALT WATER DENSITIES????? HOLY MOFO!!! :arrowhead: not only are your statements false, with no backup/proof/sources, but you Don't understand what in the heck you're talking about! How does the Gulf Stream Shut down again? Oh yes, the melt water that is fresh floats & disrupts the cycle. Last time I checked, it didn't happen all that long ago. Wheres your evidence? If Sea Level is rising at 3mm per year, and the Antarctic is cooling, where is this supposed sea level rise coming from? alot of it apparently. You are the one making the ridiculous assertion that melt water would cool the entire ocean. You've done no calculations or sources to back this up. The amount of melt water is too small to cool the entire ocean, especially when it air temperatures are far above average around Greenland. There is evidence from satellites and cameras and anybody that has ever set foot on Greenland that the glaciers are shrinking, and yet you claim this is all LIES because you don't see the cold melt water on SST maps. This is why we leave science to scientists and not kids doing science projects on their laptops at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 You're full of bullsh*t. DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRESHWATER & SALT WATER DENSITIES????? HOLY MOFO!!! :arrowhead: not only are your statements false, with no backup/proof/sources, but you Don't understand what in the heck you're talking about! How does the Gulf Stream Shut down again? Oh yes, the melt water that is fresh floats & disrupts the cycle. Last time I checked, it didn't happen all that long ago. Wheres your evidence? If Sea Level is rising at 3mm per year, and the Antarctic is cooling, where is this supposed sea level rise coming from? alot of it apparently. You have ruined this forum. Every time I look here your usually the last post on every thread and I know then there is no reason to even bother with this place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 You are the one making the ridiculous assertion that melt water would cool the entire ocean. You've done no calculations or sources to back this up. The amount of melt water is too small to cool the entire ocean, especially when it air temperatures are far above average around Greenland. There is evidence from satellites and cameras and anybody that has ever set foot on Greenland that the glaciers are shrinking, and yet you claim this is all LIES because you don't see the cold melt water on SST maps. This is why we leave science to scientists and not kids doing science projects on their laptops at home. lol Where did I make this statement "Cooling the entire ocean"? Link it I meanwhile posted a link in this thread explaining the whole issue, if you'll bother to read once in awhile. Once again, Photo Images captured by satellites show no substantial decrease in COVERAGE, I'm not referring to density. yet, if density were decreasing, the same forcing should remove the thin ice near the edges completely by now... Are you denying that freshwater floats??? Melting Greenland Glaciers would show up as a Pool of cold surface anoms surrounding the greenland coast....since freshwater floats over sal****er.....................THIS is what causes the GS to shut down when the Ice melts to a higher extent. Not the Gulf Stream also shows no signs of stopping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 lol Where did I make this statement "Cooling the entire ocean"? Link it I meanwhile posted a link in this thread explaining the whole issue, if you'll bother to read once in awhile. Once again, Photo Images captured by satellites show no substantial decrease in COVERAGE, I'm not referring to density. yet, if density were decreasing, the same forcing should remove the thin ice near the edges completely by now... Are you denying that freshwater floats??? Melting Greenland Glaciers would show up as a Pool of cold surface anoms surrounding the greenland coast....since freshwater floats over sal****er.....................THIS is what causes the GS to shut down when the Ice melts to a higher extent. Not the Gulf Stream also shows no signs of stopping. Lol @ satellites don't show areal shrinkage. Except for of course these well known large glaciers which are shrinking both in mass and size: And of course satellite altimetry as well as GRACE both show large mass net mass losses. In addition to the researchers on the ground measuring increased flow rates into the ocean as well as physical thinning by over 100m on many glaciers. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03130.html Jakobshavn: Helheim Glacier: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 haha.... you mean the 2 glaciers you show? You sure debunked me.... Again.......please read. We see these "Diagrams" & "Models" showing massive loss in the Thick Ice, but the Thin Ice remains about the same (near the coasts).....and no cold pool in the waters surrounding. That thin Ice should not be there if we're loosing mass amounts of "density"...which of course, conventiantly, we cannot see with the naked eye well at all. Either way, STOP NITPICKING, and repond to my entire post. Where did I make this statement "Cooling the entire ocean"? Link it. I meanwhile posted a link in this thread explaining the whole issue, if you'll bother to read once in awhile. Are you denying that freshwater floats??? Melting Greenland Glaciers would show up as a Pool of cold surface anoms surrounding the greenland coast....since freshwater floats over sal****er.....................THIS is what causes the GS to shut down when the Ice melts to a higher extent. Not the Gulf Stream also shows no signs of stopping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 haha.... you mean the 2 glaciers you show? You sure debunked me.... Again.......please read. We see these "Diagrams" & "Models" showing massive loss in the Thick Ice, but the Thin Ice remains about the same (near the coasts).....and no cold pool in the waters surrounding. That thin Ice should not be there if we're loosing mass amounts of "density"...which of course, conventiantly, we cannot see with the naked eye well at all. Either way, STOP NITPICKING, and repond to my entire post. Where did I make this statement "Cooling the entire ocean"? Link it. I meanwhile posted a link in this thread explaining the whole issue, if you'll bother to read once in awhile. Are you denying that freshwater floats??? Melting Greenland Glaciers would show up as a Pool of cold surface anoms surrounding the greenland coast....since freshwater floats over sal****er.....................THIS is what causes the GS to shut down when the Ice melts to a higher extent. Not the Gulf Stream also shows no signs of stopping. And as has been explained to you multiple times the amount of melt water is too small to cause noticeable cooling. Satellite altimetry, satellite based GRACE, physical measurements of glacial elevation and speed all show widespread thinning and acceleration of Greenland's glaciers. Read the nature article I posted. This is common knowledge and is not disputable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 And as has been explained to you multiple times the amount of melt water is too small to cause noticeable cooling. Satellite altimetry, satellite based GRACE, physical measurements of glacial elevation and speed all show widespread thinning and acceleration of Greenland's glaciers. Read the nature article I posted. This is common knowledge and is not disputable. We're going in Circles. What you say makes no sense. It Doesn't AFFECT SST's, It COVERS them.....Freshwater floats over sal****er, which you don;t seem to yet understand. How much Ice would it take to shut down the GS again? If we were melting , once again.....we'd see it on the coast of Greenland even if it was very small (Very Small, Mass Melting, whats the difference?). In this case, if we;re seeing unprecedented Melting.....Sorry dude, We'd see the cold freshwater on the surface. We don't. Again.....respond to my orignal post to please! Don't nitpick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Oh so you have bothered to do the calculations of mass of the glaciers relative to the masses of the bodies of water they are flowing into? Multiply by their respective heat contents. Then subtract the heat content of the ice from that of the body of water. Then divide by the heat content for the new temperature. And then somehow factor in the fact that the surrounding air is much warmer in places like Baffin Bay which is heating up the ocean anyways. I don't think you have. The amount of ice melting is tiny compared to the large bodies of water they are melting into, especially when the air warm air that is causing the melt is heating these bodies of water up dramatically anyways. Are we to conclude from your statements that Greenland is not melting because it is surrounded by above average temperature water? What a joke. This is why we leave science to scientists who do thorough research and not the whimsical fantasies of bloggers. If we had a massive meltdown of the Greenland Ice Cap, then of course we'd see lower SSTs in the region...but that's not what's happening. I think Bethesda is confusing "accelerating" which is still associated with a gradual change towards less ice with a catastrophic meltdown that would cause widespread changes in SSTs and of course the Gulf Stream, which doesn't seem to be happening. I do believe Greenland is melting; where did I say it wasn't? Temperatures in Greenland have been warmer than average the last 30 years, and we've had a huge ridge at H5 over Greenland (-NAO) since Summer 2008. Places in southern Greenland have been in the 50s recently, and the warm SSTs from the +AMO are probably causing the glaciers to calve into the ocean, accelerating their flow rate and eventually increasing melt. Greenland was also exceptionally warm last winter...look at December 2009: According to Box's paper Survey of Greenland Instrumental Temperature Records (2002): "General periods of warming occurred from 1885 to 1947 and 1984 to 2001..." You can see how warm Greenland has been lately (today's GFS 2m initialization anomaly), so I'm not surprised there's some melting going on: Also, you can see on the NOAA SSTA map that Southern Greenland is surrounded by above normal SSTs, and I'd theorize some melting is occurring in the SW areas of the island where the highest 500mb heights have been and where Baffin Bay is still unfrozen as this map also shows: So yes, I agree with your point that Greenland is experiencing ice decline. It is perhaps not catastrophic enough to induce SST changes but it is there. Whether this is just part of a natural cycle or due to AGW is another argument, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 So yes, I agree with your point that Greenland is experiencing ice decline. It is perhaps not catastrophic enough to induce SST changes but it is there. Whether this is just part of a natural cycle or due to AGW is another argument, of course. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 We're going in Circles. I wonder why? Maybe it's because it's 34 years too early for you to be convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Bingo. I just think the main contention was using GRACE to infer huge declines in ice volume/extent over Greenland, when there's clearly been problems with that data source. NASA has launched a new satellite that should take care of these problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Lol @ satellites don't show areal shrinkage. Except for of course these well known large glaciers which are shrinking both in mass and size: And of course satellite altimetry as well as GRACE both show large mass net mass losses. In addition to the researchers on the ground measuring increased flow rates into the ocean as well as physical thinning by over 100m on many glaciers. http://www.nature.co...ature03130.html Jakobshavn: Helheim Glacier: Interesting that the first glacier pictured seems to have retreated substantially when the data record started....which I'd assume on a global scale, would be miniscule (CO2 output wise, via FF) respective to today's use, yet the shrinkage seems fairly uniform.... and from 1964 to 2001, there is minimal shrinkage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Interesting that the first glacier pictured seems to have retreated substantially when the data record started....which I'd assume on a global scale, would be miniscule (CO2 output wise, via FF) respective to today's use, yet the shrinkage seems fairly uniform.... and from 1964 to 2001, there is minimal shrinkage... Maybe there is more volume to the glacier we can not see from the photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I went from reading this thread....to skimming this thread...to zooming to the end. Creationist websites (and Youtube videos) have long entertained me...for their implausible ideas and their impeccable ability to counter every piece of logical evidence with something from left field (or outer space.) Sadly, some here are perfect caricatures of what I see on creationist sites. The same inflexible convictions, the same logic warping.... and of course the most convenient answers to questions. There's a lot of great stuff in this climate section but crimany....some people need to give their keyboards (and us) a rest once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I went from reading this thread....to skimming this thread...to zooming to the end. Creationist websites (and Youtube videos) have long entertained me...for their implausible ideas and their impeccable ability to counter every piece of logical evidence with something from left field (or outer space.) Sadly, some here are perfect caricatures of what I see on creationist sites. The same inflexible convictions, the same logic warping.... and of course the most convenient answers to questions. There's a lot of great stuff in this climate section but crimany....some people need to give their keyboards (and us) a rest once in a while. Welcome to the world of manufactured doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 reviews this new paper, This seems to be notably irrelevant. You are talking about the accuracy of GRACE sea level measurement. This has nothing to do with the accuracy of GRACE measurement of the polar ice sheets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 I just think the main contention was using GRACE to infer huge declines in ice volume/extent over Greenland, when there's clearly been problems with that data source. NASA has launched a new satellite that should take care of these problems. I think the GRACE (together with other) data (despite the tens of percent error bars) are sufficient to show the trend of melting at an accelerating rate. The rates aren't that large yet, though. They are enough to melt Greenland in approximately 18000 years (actually short on a geological time scale). It's nice to know that if they do get larger, the relative error bars of GRACE will get smaller and we'll be easily able to follow the unfolding events. Regarding the SSTs, I did show images and data where you can see the local areas of cooler SSTs around Greenland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I think the GRACE (together with other) data (despite the tens of percent error bars) are sufficient to show the trend of melting at an accelerating rate. The rates aren't that large yet, though. They are enough to melt Greenland in approximately 18000 years (actually short on a geological time scale). It's nice to know that if they do get larger, the relative error bars of GRACE will get smaller and we'll be easily able to follow the unfolding events. Regarding the SSTs, I did show images and data where you can see the local areas of cooler SSTs around Greenland. If true, then why is sea level rise decelerating?? Or can you explain this away as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 What time scale are you looking at? I think this has been accelerating over the past couple of decades, and over the past few centuries as has been discussed elsewhere in this forum (and at Eastern Wx). The mean during the 20th century was 2mm/year. It is now about 3mm/year, consistent with the ice melt. We should note there are short term factors (beyond ice melt) that can affect sea level rise on decadal time scales, as shown in 20th century tide gauge data. Whether these other factors go beyond the OHC as well as the ice melt I'm not sure. We might look more at the Church 2006 paper on this? We can also look at this related report: http://www.wmo.int/p...ws_20080221.pdf In other words, maybe thermal expansion is at a slower increase this past decade. I see you started a sea level rise thread, so we can discuss there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 The thing about ice is that it doesn't stay in one place. The best studies seem cover less than a decade of measurements, and show moderate gains of ice in the middle of the continents, and loss of ice around the edges. This one, for example, seems to be covering 4 or 5 years, 2003 to 2007. There seems to be thinning ice around most of the edges of Antarctica. Stable, or slightly growing ice in the middle. West Antarctica shows a prominent blue/yellow spot in the middle which appears to be a 200km or so shift in ice, presumably downhill, but I don't see an explanation of that rapid of movement. I'm seeing movement estimates of 1 to 100m per year glacier movements, not 200km. Or, it could be an indication of a calibration error. The area around the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula actually seems to be increasing rapidly (or was increasing in 2007). I was actually wondering if rapid growth of the ice shelf could cause sheer forces at the land/ocean junction. And, thus, the partial collapse of the ice shelf may have had more to do with growth rather than loss of ice. It is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon with an instability between the weight of the ice and the water displacement causing collapse and growth cycles (and certainly could have multi-year periodicity). Truthfully, we are seeing what appear to be rapid changes with our recent temperature, volume, mass records. And, it may be cause for alarm. But, what we don't have is good information about natural cycles, or how far we are outside of those cycles. What is the source of this study? Regarding natural cycles, it seems like the recently melted Larsen B ice shelf was pretty old: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050804123855.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Interesting that the first glacier pictured seems to have retreated substantially when the data record started....which I'd assume on a global scale, would be miniscule (CO2 output wise, via FF) respective to today's use, yet the shrinkage seems fairly uniform.... and from 1964 to 2001, there is minimal shrinkage... Hmmm. So the glacier was retreating from 1851 to present. Here is a graph of Alps Glaciers (Switzerland/Italy from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. I think you hit it... These changes have been going on since the "Little Ice Age". Here is a summary of a Nature Article indicating that many of the Greenland Glaciers may be limited by their outlet. So, while they may be retreating now, the retreat isn't like pulling the plug in a bathtub, but perhaps more like water flowing out of the overflow in your bathroom sink. http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/01/rapid_retreat_of_greenlands_ou.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 What is the source of this study? Regarding natural cycles, it seems like the recently melted Larsen B ice shelf was pretty old: http://www.scienceda...50804123855.htm The photo of Antarctica the ice thickness in Antarctica is a laser reconstruction from the British Antarctic Survey. Published in Nature (sorry, only abstract ) http://www.antarctic...ease.php?id=989 http://www.nature.co...ature08471.html I had noticed the blue on the Antarctic Peninsula... and thus the comment (as well as the odd yellow/blue spots in the West Antarctic). Looking at this a little further. The "collapse" of an Ice Sheet seems to be an extended process, but progresses at least in part from the Ocean side to the land side. Contemporary theory indicated that it was caused by meltwater destabilizing the ice shelf. This discusses stress... but not in a lot of details. http://www.scienceda...80210100441.htm Here is a photo of Larsen B http://nsidc.org/new...sen_B/2002.html Those AREN'T MELTWATER CREVICES. THOSE ARE STRESS FRACTURES. But, the edge wouldn't necessarily be representative of the entire ice shelf. I'm seeing notes here that Larsen A & B had actually been thinning. At least the southern portion of Larsen C seems to be growing slightly. http://www.spri.cam....larseniceshelf/ I'm seeing different age estimates. This one puts Larsen B at 1800 years old. http://www.newscient...breaks-off.html However, most notes seem to put Larsen A at 4000 years old, and Larsen B at "At Least 10,000 years old". I suppose there is some difference there. Here is a 1997 photo of a fisher developing in the Larsen B shelf (5 years before the collapse). I don't have orientation data, but the black spots are people. I can't determine what happened when large slabs broke off from the shelf Did their elevation change? For that matter, when fissures developed, were they associated with an elevation change? There are notes that there were "ice bridges" would necessarily have been unstable. "Warmer Water" could cause erosion under the shelf. If truly floating, such erosion should slowly thin the ice. If there is something to prevent free movement, then it could cause stress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 Here's a new study confirming the accelerating melting: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Full study: http://sciences.blog...tes-fondent.pdf Concluding sentence: "...sea level rise... will likely exceed IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to 21st sea level rise." There are a lot of studies coming to this conclusion recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Full study: http://sciences.blog...tes-fondent.pdf Concluding sentence: "...sea level rise... will likely exceed IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to 21st sea level rise." There are a lot of studies coming to this conclusion recently. Yet sea level rise continues to slow, Antarctic has been COOLING, not warming. Sea level rise has slowed. The whole Idea of Antarctic Ice Melt is pretty Hilarious. About 1/2 of the Antarctic ice Sheet has no sun 1/2 of the year, and never gets above -15C. Urbanization has lead to the warming on the pennisula on the surface measurements..UAH does not have it quite signficicant, and shows cooling. UAH covers the entire antarctic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yet sea level rise continues to slow, Antarctic has been COOLING, not warming. Sea level rise has slowed. The whole Idea of Antarctic Ice Melt is pretty Hilarious. About 1/2 of the Antarctic ice Sheet has no sun 1/2 of the year, and never gets above -15C. Urbanization has lead to the warming on the pennisula on the surface measurements..UAH does not have it quite signficicant, and shows cooling. UAH covers the entire antarctic. Sorry I do not see the deceleration on that chart of sea level. It looks like a linear trend to me. The Antarctic is not cooling according to the peer-reviewed literature. O'Donnell 2010 finds a .06C/decade warming trend in the Antarctic since 1950. You have yet to provide any evidence that thermometers at antarctic research stations are improperly cited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 1) Sorry, but its painfully obvious that since the 2006 timeframe, the sea-level rise has slowed. 2) Either way, its 0.4mm per hear. 3) Surface data is Crap Compared to UAH, which covers the entire arctic ice sheet thoroughly. Peer reviewed really has no ground to stand on the issue, when we have this: 4) Download Google earth if you want to see more, I'm not your data-slave. UAH measurements contradict anything surface wise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 1) Sorry, but its painfully obvious that since the 2006 timeframe, the sea-level rise has slowed. I don't really see it. Maybe a very slight slowing that is statistically insignificant given the measurement uncertainty. I don't really care about a 4 year trend even if it was slowing significantly. 2) Either way, its 0.4mm per hear. No it is not. It says right on the chart the rate is 3.1 +/- .4mm/year. 3) Surface data is Crap Compared to UAH, which covers the entire arctic ice sheet thoroughly. Peer reviewed really has no ground to stand on the issue, when we have this: Please point to the thermometer in this picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I don't really see it. Maybe a very slight slowing that is statistically insignificant given the measurement uncertainty. I don't really care about a 4 year trend even if it was slowing significantly. No it is not. It says right on the chart the rate is 3.1 +/- .4mm/year. Please point to the thermometer in this picture. 1) Well I do, and I'm sure anyone else here would see it. Almost 1/2 of the trend is gone after 2006. 2) Apologies, misread it This is Rothera Research Station...aka... THE AIRPORT! This was obviously taken after a snowfall, but in reaily, its a UHI sink. Notice the runway...which is usually clear of snowfall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 2) Apologies, misread it This is Rothera Research Station...aka... THE AIRPORT! This was obviously taken after a snowfall, but in reaily, its a UHI sink. Notice the runway...which is usually clear of snowfall Again, please point to the location of the thermometer. If the thermometer is the recommended distance from buildings and tarmac, then there is no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.