Greenland update for 2010: record melting and a massive calving event

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:31 PM GMT on March 04, 2011

Share this Blog
6
+

No humans were present on the morning of August 4, 2010, in a remote fjord in Northwest Greenland, when the air vibrated with a thunderous crack as one of the largest icebergs in world history calved from the Petermann Glacier, the island's second largest ocean-terminating glacier. Where the glacier meets the sea, a 43 mile-long tongue of floating ice existed at the beginning of 2010. On August 4 2010, a quarter of this 43 mile-long tongue of floating ice fractured off, spawning a 100 square mile ice island four times the size of Manhattan, with a thickness half that of the Empire State building. According to Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware's College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, the freshwater stored in this ice island could have kept the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years, or kept all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days. There was speculation that the ice island could find its way into the open Atlantic Ocean in two years, and potentially pose a threat to oil platforms and ships. However, as the ice island made its turn to get from the narrow Petermann Fjord to enter Nares Strait between Greenland and Canada, the mighty iceberg split into thousands of small icebergs that will not pose an unusual threat to shipping when they emerge into the Atlantic.


Figure 1. The 100 square-mile ice island that broke off the Petermann Glacier heads out of the Petermann Fjord in this image taken by NASA's Aqua satellite on August 21, 2010. Image credit: NASA. I've constructed a 7-frame satellite animation available here that shows the calving and break-up of the Petermann Glacier ice island. The animation begins on August 5, 2010, and ends on September 21, with images spaced about 8 days apart. The images were taken by NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites.

Petermann Glacier spawned smaller ice islands in 2001 (34 square miles) and in 2008 (10 square miles). In 2005, the Ayles Ice Shelf, about 60 miles to the west of Petermann Glacier, disintegrated and became a 34 square-mile ice island. The August 2010 Petermann Glacier calving event created the largest iceberg observed in the Arctic since 1962, when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf on the north coast of Canada's Ellesmere Island calved off a massive 230 square mile chunk. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf also calved off a huge 21 square mile ice island a few days after the August 2010 Petermann Glacier calving event. According to an article in livescience.com, "Driftwood and narwhal remains found along the Ellesmere coast have radiocarbon dates from roughly 3,000 to 6,800 years ago, implying that the ice has been intact since those remains were deposited." All of the these calving events are evidence that the ice sheets in the Arctic are responding as one would expect to significantly warmer temperatures.

Warmer ocean temperatures cause significant melting of Greenland's glaciers
At a talk last December at the world's largest conference on climate change, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, glacier expert Eric Rignot of UC-Irvine implicated ocean warming as a key reason for the calving of the Petermann Glacier's ice island. The ocean waters near the glacier have warmed by 1 - 2°C over the past three years, he said, and all of the periphery of Greenland has seen ocean heat increases in recent years, with the result that 20 - 80% of all the mass lost by Greenland's glaciers in recent years could be attributed to melting of the glaciers by warmer waters attacking them from beneath. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, and far warmer than the previous record of 1.5°C above average set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s. A study earlier this year published in the journal Science (Spielhagen et al., 2011) found that ocean temperatures on the east side of Greenland are now at their warmest levels in at least 2,000 years. The researchers studied a sediment core containing fossil remains of planktic foraminifers, which vary as a function of water temperature. The study noted that not only have the waters flowing northward on the east side of Greenland warmed significantly, the volume of water flowing north has also increased, resulting in a large transport of heat into the Arctic. "Such an increased heat input has far-reaching consequences," they wrote.


Figure 2. Departure of sea surface temperature from average for 2010 from the NOAA Daily Optimum Interpolation SST Anomaly data set for October 2010. Areas colored red are warmer than the 1971-2000 average, areas colored blue are cooler than that average. A large region of record warm water temperatures extended along the west coast of Greenland, leading to record warm air temperatures and record melting along the western portion of Greenland in 2010. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, surpassing the previous record of 1.5°C set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s. Image credit: NOAA Visualization Lab.

Record warmth and melting in Greenland during 2010
Greenland's climate in 2010 was marked by record-setting high air temperatures, the greatest ice loss by melting since accurate records began in 1958, and the greatest mass loss of ocean-terminating glaciers on record. That was the conclusion of the 2010 Arctic Report Card, a collaborative effort between NOAA and European Arctic experts that comes out each year. Was 2010 the warmest year in Greenland's history? That is difficult to judge. We know it was also very warm in the late 1920s and 1930s in Greenland, but we only have two stations, Godtahab Nuuk and Angmagssalik, with weather records that go back that far (Figure 3.) Godtahab Nuuk set a record high in 2010, but temperatures at Angmagssalik in 2010 were similar to what was observed during several years in the 1920s and 1930s. Marco Tedesco of the City College of New York's Cryosphere Processes Laboratory remarked that last year's record warmth and melting in Greenland began when an unusually early spring warm spell reduced and "aged" the snow on the surface of the ice sheet, so that the snow became less reflective, allowing it to absorb more heat from the sun. This accelerated snow melt even further, exposing the bare ice, which is less reflective than snow and absorbs more heat. This feedback loop extended Greenland's record melting season well into the fall.


Figure 3. Historic temperatures in Greenland for the six stations with at least 50 years of data, as archived by NASA. Three of the six stations set record highs in 2010. However, only two of the six stations (Godtahab Nuuk and Angmagssalik) have data going back beyond the 1930s, which was a period of warmth in Greenland similar to the warmth of the current decade. Godtahab Nuuk set a record high in 2010, but 2003 still ranks as Angmagssalik's hottest year on record.


Figure 4. The 2010 summer melt season was lasted more than 40 days longer (purple colors) than the mean melt season from 1979 - 2007. Image credit: Arctic Report Card.

Why Greenland matters: sea level rise
The major concern with a warming climate in Greenland is melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which currently contributes about 25% of the observed 3 mm/year (1.2 inches per decade) global rise in sea level. Higher sea levels mean increased storm surge inundation, coastal erosion, loss of low-lying land areas, and salt water contamination of underground drinking water supplies. Greenland ice mass loss is accelerating over the long term, according to independent estimates using three different techniques (Figure 5), with more mass being lost each year than the previous year. According to Rignot et al., 2011, ice mass loss is also accelerating in Antarctica, and "the magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level rise in the 21st century." As I discussed in a 2009 blog post, How much will global sea level rise this century?, the IPCC in 2007 estimated that global sea level would rise 0.6 - 1.9 feet by 2100, but several studies since then predict a higher range of 1.6 - 6.6 feet.

During the warm period 125,000 years ago, before the most recent ice age, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted. This melting plus the melting of other smaller Arctic ice fields is thought to have caused 7.2 - 11.2 feet (2.2 - 3.4 meters) of the 13 - 20 foot (4 - 6 meter) sea level rise observed during that period. Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3°C by 2100, to levels similar to 125,000 years ago. If this level of warming occurs, we can expect sea levels to rise 13 - 20 feet several centuries from now. There's enough water locked away in the ice sheet to raise sea level to rise 23 feet (7 meters), should the entire Greenland ice sheet melt.


Figure 5. Loss of mass from Greenland's ice sheet in gigatons per year from 1992 through 2009, as computed from satellite gravity measurements from the GRACE satellites (red line) and from a mass balance method. The mass balance method computes the amount of snow on the surface, the amount of ice mass lost to wind and melt, and the amount of ice lost computed from glacier velocity and ice thickness. Adding together these terms gives the total amount of ice lost or gained over the ice sheet. The acceleration is given in gigatons per year squared. Another paper by Zwally et al. (2011) used a third method, laser satellite altimetry, to determine Greenland mass loss. Between 2003 to 2007, the ice sheet lost 171 gigatons of mass per year. Between 1992 to 2002, Greenland was only losing only 7 gigatons per year. Image credit: Rignot et al., 2011, Geophysical Research Letters.

References
Rignot, E., et al., 2011: Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, in press, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583.

Spielhagen, et al., 2011, Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water, Science 28 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6016 pp. 450-453 DOI: 10.1126/science.1197397

Zwally, J., et al., 2011, Greenland ice sheet mass balance: distribution of increased mass loss with climate warming; 2003 - 07 versus 19922 - 2002, Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 57, No. 201, 2011.

Wunderground's climate change section has a Greenland web page with detailed information and references.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 89 - 39

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

overwash, how are you able to print that big? I like it..... much easier to read.... well done...

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This weather pattern is not good for a lot of people. There will be severe storms, flooding, high winds. This will be the forth significant storm to hit the Mid South and New England 3 weeks. Some areas will receive more than four inches of rain with this system. The ground here is saturated and the lakes and rivers are near bankfull. The GEM shows just how big both these systems are. This looks like a snow storm 156 hours out.....The GEM model...Link
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 21193

What is the largest iceberg recorded?

The largest Northern Hemisphere iceberg on record was encountered near Baffin Island in 1882. It was 13 km long, 6 km wide and had a freeboard (height above water) of about 20 m. The mass of that iceberg was in excess of 9 billion tonnes - enough water for everyone in the world to drink a litre a day for over 4 years. Despite this staggering statistic, icebergs from Antarctica may be many times larger than this. In 1987 an iceberg with an area of 6350 square kilometers broke from the Ross ice shelf. That berg had a mass of around 1.4 trillion tonnes and could have supplied everyone in the world with 240 tonnes of pure drinking water

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Starving In The Cold

Updated-Original post 2-24-2008

Recently Rosa Compagnucci along with several other Argentine scientist came out in opposition to the alarmist view of anthropological global warming as promoted by the IPCC. Who is Rosa Compagnucci and why is this important? She is the leading researcher at CONICET and a professor in the Department of Atmosphere Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires, as well as a specialist on the "El Niño" phenomenon. Dr. Compagnucci was also a member and author of the IPCC Working Group II on Latin America.

The fact that Dr Compagnucci now disagrees with the IPCC’s conclusions is not unique, a number of scientist involved with the IPCC have been critical of the agency. What caught my attention was a statement she made while explaining her reasons.


With all the emphasis on preparing for global warming, she warned, this could leave man unprepared to deal with the possibility of a new ice age. She noted that South America's Southern Cone just went through a brutal, record-breaking winter, which could be repeated in North America. These concerns were expressed this past December 2nd, prior to the onset of this current brutal winter in much of the Northern Hemisphere.

It is interesting to note that a climate scientist unfettered by the need to defend a political position can make such a prophetic observation based solely on her judgment and intuition of current conditions. As regards to a coming ice age she did explain that this could be hundreds of years in the future, but she did expect a downward temperature swing by 2012.

She is not alone in this concern however, several scientist particularly astrophysicists and astronomers such as Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory have been warning that solar irradiance has begun to fall, which will cause a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The decline in solar irradiance he projects will last well into mid century and beyond putting Earth into an ever increasing deep freeze into the next century.

Since I originally wrote this many more scientist have expressed concerns about a cooling world. Dr. Pal Brekke a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo put it this way


"We could be in for a surprise," he cautions. "It's possible that the sun
plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our
time."


and he added:


There is much evidence that the sun's high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating. If it is true that the sun's activity is of great significance in determining the earth's climate, this reduced solar activity could work in the opposite direction to climate change caused by humans. In that case," contends Dr Brekke, "we could find the temperature levelling off or actually falling in the course of a 50-year period" - an assertion that provokes many climate researchers

.
Obviously if this is true and there really is a danger of man made global warming then the sun's reduced activity counteracting it should be welcomed. But as you can tell from the article any mention of the sun having an impact on the climate is frowned upon by the so called mainstream climate community. This is because they do not recognize the sun having anything but a marginal impact on our climate variations. Anything that does not point to greenhouse gasses as the primary driver of the climate is considered sacrilegious. I'll let the reader decide if given millions of years of Earth's existence this makes sense, considering the short history of the automobile industry.

You might also consider that according to these same mainstream climate gurus the warmest year in the industrial age was 1998, and 2008 is the coolest year since then despite atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increasing at an "alarming rate". So why has it cooled? "There is much evidence that the sun's high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating."

In addition to the sun, as if that wasn't big enough, in April it was announced that we transitioned from a warm PDO phase to a cold phase. What does that mean? Well according to Professor Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University :


The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.


I could point to quite a few scientist in several fields who are either predicting or speculating that this will happen, even scientist who agree with the AGW theory. Since I originally wrote this (prior to the PDO shift) more and more scientist are expressing concern and weighing in on the subject. However that is not the main point I wish to make here.

So often in the Global Warming discussion you hear comments like “What difference does it make if the scientist are wrong, it will be good for the world to cut back on CO2 emissions.”

Believe me when I say I’m all for cutting our dependence on and use of fossil fuels for many reasons, but scientist being wrong about man made global warming is not one of them. Let’s look at just one reason why we should not be in favor of taking actions based on possible faulty conclusions.

First, let us suppose that Dr. Abdussamatov is correct and we begin a prolonged period of global cooling sometime next decade. In point of fact we may have already started, since the globe has shown no warming since 1998, let me say that again in case you did not know. 1998 was the warmest year in the past decade, that means there has been no warming since then, 2008 in case you haven’t noticed doesn’t look like it’s going to threaten the trend, but we will see.

Back to Dr. A, if he is correct, how are you going to feel about climate scientist come the end of next decade? The winters will get worse, food prices will rise even more because growing seasons will shorten rather than lengthen as would happen with global warming. Energy prices will skyrocket even more than now because it cost more to heat than to cool. There will be more deaths because cold related deaths exceed heat related. Believe me when I say everyone will be wishing the scientist were right about global warming because global cooling will be far worse for our world.

But it’s worse than just being upset at the scientist and them loosing credibility. Speaking of which my twenty-two year old daughter has lived her entire life under this ever increasing alarm and threat from global warming. What is it going to do to her generations trust in science if we begin… excuse me continue to cool? But as I said it’s worse than that.

Have you ever been on a trip and gotten on a highway going in the opposite direction than you intended. Suddenly you realize it twenty miles down the road. The worst part is not just the miles you went, it’s also the gas you used and the time you lost and that’s still not all. You have to spend just as much time, go just as many miles and use just as much gas again to get back to where you started. In affect you have lost the equivalent of not the twenty miles but sixty, the twenty gone wrong the twenty return and the twenty more you should have been and you can never get the time and gas back, they are lost.

Let’s look at another way in which this whole global warming hysteria has us going in a direction that could be very painful to return from. First, many countries, the United States now included, are mandating that a percentage of there energy use be replaced by bio-fuels. This is already having a dramatic affect on world food prices and stockpiles. So in the coming years we will be increasingly burning our food supply. As the world population and the demand for agricultural products grow we will be using those needed commodities for fuel instead of for sustenance. If we continue this policy which calls for ever increasing ethanol production it will only exacerbate the problem considerably in a colder world with shorter growing seasons.

It is easy to say that we would just switch back to using the crops for food but the real world does not work that way. Despite the fact that global temperatures have leveled over the past decade, the constant drum beat of climate change has been unrelenting causing world wide changes in energy policies, scientific research, economic planning and priorities.

Do you really believe that the scientist, environmental groups and politicians that have invested so much of their credibility on this theory are suddenly going to say “Oh Gee, we got it wrong, never mind” ? Not to mention that tremendous amounts of capital is being invested in research, development and infrastructures to accommodate this growing industry. I would assume that bio-fuel plants are not cheap. There is also the economic, availability and psychological affect if we are suddenly faced with switching back to using more fossil fuel in order to keep the world from starving. Think about that one for a while.

Like going the wrong way and having to turn around on a trip, tremendous resources are being expended in the wrong direction. Will we really give a hoot about wind farms if we are suffering through -50 degF winters as they just did in Maine, a new record low for all of New England.

While new coal plants are being taken off the table and drilling for oil and natural gas has become anathema to the power elite that control our country, how foolish will we look when we are burning forest and buildings for heat?

If some scientists say that the world is going to heat up and others say it is going to cool down what do you do? Perhaps the best course is to watch and see instead of running in the opposite direction from where you need to go. Making policies and taking steps that will only exacerbate future conditions seems to be a bit extreme. Personally I hope the AGW proponents are correct, the benefits of a warmer world out weigh the negatives, though you seldom hear this side of the discussion.

Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists.Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006:


“Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….”


January 16,2009

And he is getting more and more support for his view because it would be a real shame if we left our children and grandchildren starving in the cold.

From
A Long Road Home Revisited (2-12-2010)

The Global Warming mythology has infected all aspects of society. Not only is every weather event somehow attributable to man made global warming but as important is the lack of preparedness for what in the past would be considered prudent caution in response to what once was considered natural events. Earlier this year when the UK was hammered with heavy snows and cold temperatures which their MET Office had not forecast, they were left unprepared in many respects, not the least of it being salt:

Ministers have ordered highway authorities across the UK to cut their salt usage
by 25% to manage the pressure on salt supplies caused by the most prolonged spell of cold weather in the UK in almost 30 years.


When Washington DC was about to be hit with its third major snow event of the season 25 percent of its plow fleet was down, having trouble getting replacement parts and they too were running short on salt. Why would a city, our nations Capital which is funded by the Federal Government, not have spare parts for such essential equipment? Granted that the snow in the Mid Atlantic region has been historic this winter, but then again based on popular beliefs perpetrated about our climate who would have prepared for historic cold and snow anyway, what a waste right ?

It is one thing for a city such as Dallas to be unprepared for a record breaking foot of snow, the chances are it will be an anomaly in the long run. However the record breaking snow in DC just edged out the previous record (so far) it certainly is not unprecedented.

Indeed governments around the globe have bought so completely into the global warming myth they are afraid of being accused of negligence for not preparing for and establishing policies to meet rising sea levels in the distant future-not snow levels. But it is the snow and ice which we are faced with now isn't it? And governments find themselves unprepared.
***

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
If you're an atheist,then we will evolve like Kevin Costner did in waterworld!

God save us all.... he's one of the least evolved people on the planet....

Please post on your own blog. This blog is a climate/weather blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Arctic's Spring Phytoplankton Blooms Arrive Earlier

Of the areas with valid data, 11 percent show a trend toward earlier blooms, while only 1 percent showed later blooms. These locations have a "striking similarity" to the patterns of decrease in early summer sea ice, they write.

In some areas, the change was quite dramatic. For example, in the Baffin Sea, southwest of Greenland, the peak bloom moved from September to early July.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
6 Surfcropper "Any wonder why the south pole doesn't get as much doom and gloom? Antarctica doesn't melt away as fast as Greenland...so its secondary in importance."

The presentday net melt rate (total melt minus deposition of new snow) of Antarctica is about half that of the Arctic. There was screaming about the ArcticIceMelt when it was less than half of its current rate. ie Less than a decade ago, the Arctic had a lower rate of melting than the Antarctic has now. Other than familiarity with PolarMelting, there is no reason why the Antarctic melting doesn't produce the same reaction as Arctic melting did back then.
Don't hafta wonder about why:
1) Because of its orbit during the current Age, Earth's axial tilt is such that the NorthernHemisphere is closest to the Sun (147,098,290kilometres) during its summer, which also means that the SouthernHemisphere is farthest from the Sun (152,098,232kilometres) from during its summer. Due to the inverse square law of radiation, the NorthPole is heated by ~7% more sunlight at perihelion during the NorthernHemisphere summer than the SouthPole receives at aphelion during the SouthernHemisphere summer. More sunlight means more energy delivered for heating.
2) Ozone is a greenhouse gas. Due to the Antarctic OzoneHole, less heat radiation is reflected back down to the SouthPole than at the NorthPole.
3) The Antarctic is circled by open ocean, which provides a degree of insulation from warm water currents flowing from the Equator. Most of the Arctic is surrounded by land, which shapes currents flows in a manner that delivers more equatorial warmth toward the NorthPole.
4) The equatorial winds produces a barrier to atmospheric mixing between the northern and southern hemisphere. eg During the Great Indonesian Rain Forest Fires, very little (less than 5%, I think) of the soot and other pollutants crossed the Equator into the SouthernHemisphere. The rest deposited itself upon the NorthernHemisphere.
Historically, most industrialization has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere; and most of that in the northern portion of the NorthernHemisphere. So MUCH more of that soot has landed on northern glaciers, northern ice sheets, and northern sea-ice than on southern. Soot absorbs more sunlight than snow&ice: more absorbtion means more warming (and melting) of the snow&ice below.
5) More open ocean in the SouthernHemisphere than in the NorthernHemisphere; which means both more total precipatiable water vapor in the atmosphere and fewer land masses to intercept that precipitation before it lands as snow on the Antarctic than NorthernHemisphere precipitable water vapor landing as snow on the Arctic.

ETC...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Indeed, Greenland once had warming period more significant than this, and you sure as heck couldn't blame it on people. That is just one example, there are far many more than that.

That being said, it is illogical and biased to blame all warming on people. To think we know all there is to know what shapes the earths Climate is absurd and unscientific.

I'm not saying it will, but for all we know, 30 to 50 years from now, natural causes will produce cooling on the earth to completely offset the warming.

Have humans significantly polluted the earth and added CO2 to the air? Yes. Therefore we must have contributed to some degree. The Climate is changing, and we have added CO2, that we know.

However, we do not know how much we have affected the Climate, and what it really means for the planets future.

Indeed, the chance exists it could spell significant trouble. Even if not, the pollution of the environment is terrible for wild life, and terrible for us. We must proceed to better, cleaner technology.


This is an honest conclusion on Climate Change.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
The gom thing is puffing towards shore.


Yes it is, rain off and on.....wish Florida and other firey areas had this.....but not the wind..:}
Member Since: September 16, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1492
Concerning the Petermann "ice island":

Quoting Dr.Masters: "All of the these calving events are evidence that the ice sheets in the Arctic are responding as one would expect to significantly warmer temperatures."


Kudos for mentioning the 1962 event, as a lot of articles at the time didn't seem to. As to the quote above, the Petermann isn't necessarily related to warming. From the original article concerning the 2010 Petermann event, linked below.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Greenland-Ice -Island-Prompts-Global-Warming-Debate-100590574.ht ml

From the article:
Scientists say they cannot confirm whether the rip in the ice was caused by global warming because of a lack of information. They only started keeping records on the sea water around the glacier in 2003.

And ocean science professor Andreas Muenchow says years of data on the glacier itself show that after this month's event, the mass of ice is still, on average, discharging about the same amount of water it usually does - some 600 million cubic meters a year, or about 220,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. "Even a big piece like this over 50 years is not that significant. It's just the normal rate," he said.

Muenchow warns people not to jump to conclusions. "An event like this, this specific event, all flags go immediately up, 'Oh, let's explain this by global warming.' I cannot support that," he said."





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
there is a SVR T-storm warning now for a cell along I-35... more to come i suspect
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
9 HarryMc "The Greenland ice posting was an interesting read. I'm still trying to fathom a GIGATON"

1 megatonne of ice is about the size of the Houston Astrodome.
A cubic kilometre of water has a mass of 1 gigatonne. Water expands when it turns to ice.
1 gigatonne of ice would be about the size of 1000 Astrodomes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
no watches or warnings up, but that's a hefty cell on it's way to Kansas City. has the kind of echo shape that makes me thinks a mesocyclone, but i'm not sure there's much vorticity going on in that area... anyone with good maps for that kind of info?

edit: temps pretty low in that area too, probably nothing more than heavy downpours... gonna be watching the area east of there though through the day.
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1320
69. lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If you're an atheist,then we will evolve like Kevin Costner did in waterworld!

God save us all.... he's one of the least evolved people on the planet....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting palmbaywhoo:
If you are a creationist, then the recent trends should be much more alarming.
During the warm period 125,000 years ago, before the most recent ice age, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted.
Most creationists believe the earth isn't anywhere near 125,000 years old. And if they are correct, we may be in some deep water.
So what we are seeing, if it continues to hold water, would be unequalled to anything the world has every seen.
            If you're an atheist,then we will evolve like Kevin Costner did in waterworld!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If you are a creationist, then the recent trends should be much more alarming.
During the warm period 125,000 years ago, before the most recent ice age, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted.
Most creationists believe the earth isn't anywhere near 125,000 years old. And if they are correct, we may be in some deep water.
So what we are seeing, if it continues to hold water, would be unequalled to anything the world has every seen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


You might want to read Jeff's blog, or do some self study Pat.

From todays posting... look up... way up.

"During the warm period 125,000 years ago, before the most recent ice age, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted. This melting plus the melting of other smaller Arctic ice fields is thought to have caused 7.2 - 11.2 feet (2.2 - 3.4 meters) of the 13 - 20 foot (4 - 6 meter) sea level rise observed during that period. Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3�C by 2100, to levels similar to 125,000 years ago".

There was a warm period prior to the last ice age.
If you increase the level of the ocean... ocean currents change.. dramatically. I don't think anyone will disagree with that?

A shift of a couple hundred miles could bring on an ice age very rapidly (less then 10 years)

Do I think we are going into an ice age...I doubt it.

What I am trying to say is... Climate Changes... our data base for making world altering decisions is minuscule for the period of time.

Has the Climate Changed before.. YES.

Was it caused by man.... NO.

I agree we are part of the problem... I disagree to the proportion of the problem some on here think man is responsible for.

Can we stop it... NO.





Not necessarily. A shift might cause some parts of the planet to get colder, but you'd still have the effect of additional thermal absorption to deal with.

Ice ages occur when the planet's ability to hang onto heat drops. This can come from a combination of several vectors, including albedo changes, ocean chemistry changes, atmospheric changes, etc. .

It takes more than a current shift to bring the planet into an ice age. You'd actually need to model the situation to see whether or not it would happen. Current climate models contain dynamic ocean models, and despite the melt-water projects and current changes that are shown in the scenarios, the planet still warms significantly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
64. Skyepony (Mod)
Quoting islander101010:
during the spill i had colorluss yet slippery oily film on my surfboard e coast florida greenland gig is shocking lets hope it turns around


There has been effects here in ECFL. People could smell it. The incidence of nosebleeds in kids near the river & ocean was disturbing.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37829
Quoting Skyepony:
Three fails would be too obvious.. The funding is on the chopping block.


LOL you cynic.
)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
62. Skyepony (Mod)
Three fails would be too obvious.. The funding is on the chopping block.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37829
during the spill i had colorluss yet slippery oily film on my surfboard e coast florida greenland gig is shocking lets hope it turns around
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Skyepony:
Pat~ i'm not at all surprised.. what happened to Glory. I would have bet against it ever making it to orbit.


Feb 2009/Orbiting Carbon Observatory FAIL!
Mar 2011/Glory (OCO replacement) FAIL!
hmmm...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
56. Skyepony (Mod)
Pat~ i'm not at all surprised.. what happened to Glory. I would have bet against it ever making it to orbit.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37829
Quoting JFLORIDA:


WU is very gracious in giving us all blogs to consider extensive personal situations and daily greetings. Taking care of it on one with hundreds of daily visitors may seem selfish to some. Especially if we all were to take up what is now the daily habit.

Its kinda insisting on special treatment if you think about it. Perhaps the input warrants it and perhaps not.

:)


It takes up no more useless space than your current entry. In fact, not as much. It happens all the time on here, but in a different manner. I would like to see you chastise every blogger that greets a friend on here. Like maybe Floodman, Gothar, Tornadodude, Patrap, etc.
Get over yourself.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Why don't we nuke the moon into oblivion? That should help.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
AMY!!!!!!

unabashed and unashamed to greet my friend.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
www.globalchange.gov



Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate



Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.


Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Figure 4 from above as shown on WUWT:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.

;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13529
The "coup de Graph"

800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations



Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.

Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


You might want to read Jeff's blog, or do some self study Pat.

From todays posting... look up... way up.

"During the warm period 125,000 years ago, before the most recent ice age, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted. This melting plus the melting of other smaller Arctic ice fields is thought to have caused 7.2 - 11.2 feet (2.2 - 3.4 meters) of the 13 - 20 foot (4 - 6 meter) sea level rise observed during that period. Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3�C by 2100, to levels similar to 125,000 years ago".

There was a warm period prior to the last ice age.
If you increase the level of the ocean... ocean currents change.. dramatically. I don't think anyone will disagree with that?

A shift of a couple hundred miles could bring on an ice age very rapidly (less then 10 years)

Do I think we are going into an ice age...I doubt it.

What I am trying to say is... Climate Changes... our data base for making world altering decisions is minuscule for the period of time.

Has the Climate Changed before.. YES.

Was it caused by man.... NO.

I agree we are part of the problem... I disagree to the proportion of the problem some on here think man is responsible for.

Can we stop it... NO.





Sorry to add to the factual denial that seems prevalent around these parts. How about these tidbits







Human caused warming I presume DR.?


Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age
ScienceDaily (June 19, 2008) — Information gleaned from a Greenland ice core by an international science team shows that two huge Northern Hemisphere temperature spikes prior to the close of the last ice age some 11,500 years ago were tied to fundamental shifts in atmospheric circulation.

The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors.

Link


Mysteriously Warm Times in Antarctica
ScienceDaily (Nov. 22, 2009) — A new study of Antarctica's past climate reveals that temperatures during the warm periods between ice ages (interglacials) may have been higher than previously thought. The latest analysis of ice core records suggests that Antarctic temperatures may have been up to 6°C warmer than the present day.
The findings, recently reported by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Open University and University of Bristol in the journal Nature could help us understand more about rapid Antarctic climate changes.
Previous analysis of ice cores has shown that the climate consists of ice ages and warmer interglacial periods roughly every 100,000 years. This new investigation shows temperature 'spikes' within some of the interglacial periods over the last 340,000 years. This suggests Antarctic temperature shows a high level of sensitivity to greenhouse gases at levels similar to those found today.
Lead author Louise Sime of British Antarctic Survey said,
"We didn't expect to see such warm temperatures, and we don't yet know in detail what caused them. But they indicate that Antarctica's climate may have undergone rapid shifts during past periods of high CO2."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/0911 19141039.htm

Link



The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." ~Isaac Asimov


It got warm all by itself without Western Civilization
guilt for creating a modern world.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting greentortuloni:


Wrong question: better question: What chance is there that all this is caused by man? What are the consequences? Can we stop it? what are the consequences of stopping it/trying to stop it?

Your question is like "My child is playing on the railroad tracks. The rails are vibrating, it sounds like a train is coming.. but before I do something, I wanna know: is this a diesel or electric train?"

      I have an even better one. Why is it that NASA was so interested in finding water on the moon or Mars. So,we could send a manned spacecraft to mars and set up an Outpost,to make energy to get back to Earth. They didn't say a word about oil !  Well,we have water here. What are we waiting for? To burn every last drop of oil!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sorry.. got sucked in again. I'll leave..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NWS NOLA discussion

The models do not readily converge on same solution...with the NAM
suggesting onset of stronger storms earlier than GFS. In both
models strong convection is prognosticated by Saturday...as the southerly
850 mb jet of about 35 to 45 kts extends into southern states and
250 mb jet maximum pushes across southern Louisiana from 18z to 00z
sun. The trough will continue to dig and become more amplified as
it works east. The cold front will slowly work into the County Warning Area from
the northwest late Saturday...with a weak surface wave developing
along the front. By early Saturday evening...both models indicate
a developing surface low over southern MS. Therefore...Saturday
and Saturday night will be active over the p/cwa. After 06z...only
the eastern portion of County Warning Area will remain in right rear quadrant of
upper jet...as the surface low pushes east into Alabama.



Juicy and muggy here,,scattered showers developing.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:


You might want to read Jeff's blog, or do some self study Pat.

From todays posting... look up... way up.

"During the warm period 125,000 years ago, b....t think anyone will disagree with that?

A shift of a couple hundred miles could bring on an ice age very rapidly (less then 10 years)

Do I think we are going into an ice age...I doubt it.

What I am trying to say is... Climate Changes... our data base for making world altering decisions is minuscule for the period of time.

Has the Climate Changed before.. YES.

Was it caused by man.... NO.

I agree we are part of the problem... I disagree to the proportion of the problem some on here think man is responsible for.

Can we stop it... NO.





It's happened before so it's not problem... no, it has never happened before. The final result may have been achieved but no one knows at what rate it happend: over thousands of years perhaps.

Man isn't causing it, or not all of it... Take your pick of which of these two scenarios seems more likely: 1) the world has been puttering along changing at a glacial pace (pun intended) and then all by itself it starts changing drastically all by itself with no outside influence. or 2) The world has been puttering along and suddenly it starts changing more or less in line with all the models that show that man is destroying his environment, there si a reason and outside influence: man.

We can't do anything about it... Give up a lot? Or just when it's easier to pretend the problem doesn't exist.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 89 - 39

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.