Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Zebras? In Greenland? Really?

Posted on 11 April 2011 by Daniel Bailey, mspelto

At first glance, zebras are all the same.  Sure, you can argue that they are black with white stripes or white with black stripes.  But nobody really cares; they're Zebras, after all.

Fig 1.  Zebras (Equus Hippotigris; image courtesy National Geographic)

Just as each zebra has an individualized set of stripes, making them unique, so also are each of the individual glaciers in Greenland unique.  They each have varied lengths, heights, widths, fjord geometries, differently-sized accumulation zones (where they "pack on weight") and flow speeds.  Each is located in a different part of Greenland and thus are also affected differently by their latitude, oceanic currents (for the marine-terminating glaciers), weather and climatic patterns.  And also by the modifying effects of Arctic amplification of the warming of the globe.

Variations in Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glacier behavior

The Greenland Ice Sheet has an area of 2.17 million square kilometers (1.28 million square miles) and spans 18o degrees of latitude from north to south.  It is not surprising that over this vast area that the geology and climate vary substantially and that this leads to variations in behavior of Greenland glaciers.  Our tendency is to lump the Greenland Ice Sheet into one category impacted similarly by each of the dynamic forces that impact flow. This is akin to saying banks, credit unions and savings and loan institutions are impacted similarly by all the economic forces.  In the case of a recession there is a shared signal, just as with global warming there is a shared signal amongst Greenland glaciers.   This is a simplification that does not work.  In this article we divide the glaciers into four main categories to illustrate the different properties and sensitiveness of each.

The surface mass balance of the glacier is the difference of accumulating snow on the ice sheet (its income) and snow and ice losses from melting and calving (its expenditures).  The volume of the ice sheet is its asset.  On an ice sheet, the main factor driving flow is simply the mass balance input in the accumulation zone.  The higher the accumulation rate the faster the movement; the accumulated snow is inexorably moved downslope towards the ocean and the margin of the ice sheet.  Observation of a precipitation map (focused not on the outer margin, but on the accumulation zone of the ice sheet) indicates that highest accumulation rates, over 40 cm per year, extend along the western side of the ice sheet to the southeast quadrant of the ice sheet.  

F2

 

 

Fig 2. Distribution of precipitation in Greenland (in grams per square centimeter per year). Contours dashed where inferred. Ice-free areas are shown in dark gray. (USGS Satellite Image Atlas of Greenland)

 

 

The overall topography of the ice sheet is controlled both by the basal and peripheral geology and the mass balance distribution of the ice sheet.  The higher rates of mass accumulation inland and the greater melting nearer the margin yield a steeper profile for the ice sheet. 

F3

 

 

Fig 3. Topographic map of the Greenland ice sheet. The contour interval is 100 m. Local ice caps and ice domes are shown in green. Ice-free areas are shown in dark gray. (USGS Satellite Image Atlas of Greenland)

 

 

Figure 3 shows that the contours have the closest spacing along the west margin and in the southeast, just as the high accumulation rates in those areas would suggest.  Thus the combination of the surface slope and the accumulation rate drive faster flow in these regions. 

The generalized calving output of each section of the ice sheet (Figure 4, below) indicates the volume flux by quadrant and by glacier in some cases. 

F4

 

 

Fig 4. Generalized calving output by quadrant, in cubic kilometers per year water equivalent based on the assumption of an equilibrium state. The contours indicate elevation in meters. (USGS Satellite Image Atlas of Greenland)

 

 

The northern quadrant is one of the largest in terms of the ice sheet perimeter, but the calving output is the lowest at 20 km3.  The northeast quadrant at 35 km3 is the second lowest.  The highest are the southwest and southeast quadrants at 113 km3 and 80 km3 respectively.  The difference is the result of higher accumulation rates.   If we look at more recent work, which examines the changes in volume discharge and surface mass balance, we see the greatest discharge changes and surface loss are in the southeast. 

F5

Fig 5. Higher calving flux indicates higher velocities (Van Den Broecke et al, 2009). D denotes change in ice discharge while SMB denotes the net surface mass balance (accumulation minus ablation).


F6

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 6. Ice flow speed in Greenland (color) for winter 2006 derived from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery (gray scale image derived from NASA funded research. Because of the large range of speeds (1 -13,000 m/yr), a log color scale is used (Ian Joughlin, Big Ice)

 

Hence the above velocity map of the glacier will indicate higher average velocities in the quadrants with the highest calving volume flux.  This map indicates relatively low flow rates of less than 10 m/year inland, with particular bands of fast flow that extend well into the ice sheet and feed outlet glaciers.  The variation in flow and accumulation rates indicates the problem of lumping the glaciers into one category. 

Climate change has led to an observed increase in surface melting, surface accumulation, increased discharge and overall mass balance losses.  The very mechanism that establishes the basics of behavior of the GIS mass balance are changing (Zwally et al, 2011).

Greenland glaciers fall into at least 4 common types, each with its own unique sensitivity to sea surface temperature, surface melting, meltwater lubrication, calving changes, etc.

Type 1: Northern, with Large Floating Termini

Northern glaciers with large floating termini (Petermann, Ryder, Steensby, Zachariae, Academy, etc).  Each of these is a marine terminating outlet glacier that has an extensive floating ice shelf.  The large ice shelves can exist in part due to the lower surface melt rates and the lower flow rates of the glacier.  Petermann Glacier is the fastest with a flow speed of 1000 m/year at the grounding line.  This is much less than the average outlet glacier speed along the west coast.  The large floating ice shelves are susceptible to bottom melting but, except for Petermann Glacier, we have no observations of the process or that more warm water is penetrating under these ice shelves.  Rignot and Steffen (2008) found that at Petermann Glacier 80% of the ice loss into the ocean was from basal melting of the floating tongue.  If the ice shelves are removed, the feeding glacier is less buttressed and will accelerate for a period and draw down its surface profile.  The recent ice area lost by Petermann, Academy and Zachariae Ice Stream indicate these glaciers are being impacted by the increased melting at the surface and likely the base of the ice shelf for Petermann Glacier at least. 

Examination of how far the high velocities extend inland in Figure 6 indicates that it is only Zachariae and Petermann that tap far into the ice sheet.  This northern area has low accumulation rates, and a shorter less intense melt season.  The early onset of melting and lack of accumulation in 2010 led to an early exposure of the ablation zone on these glaciers. 

This is their sensitivity Achilles Heel:  relatively little increases in melt can expand the ablation zone appreciably given the low surface slopes and low accumulation rates.   Based on the velocity map, it is the Zachariae that is likely the only of this group that would be comparable to a bank that is too big to fail as its increased velocity band extends well into the ice sheet. 

F7

 

 

 

Fig 7. Ice flow speed for Zachariae Glacier (Joughlin et al, 2010)

 

 

 

 

Type 2: Inland-terminating

Glaciers with inland termini lacking any calving (Sukkertoppen, Frederickshaab, Russell, etc). Between the fast flowing marine terminating outlet glaciers, the ice sheet particularly in the southwest quadrant has numerous glaciers that terminate on land or in small lakes.  The velocity of these glaciers reaches a maximum of 1-2 meters/day.  Each terminates on land because total ablation over the glacier equals total accumulation at the terminus.  These glaciers are more like a typical alpine glacier and are susceptible to the forces that tend to cause alpine glaciers to experience peak flow during spring and early summer.  Those forces are the delivery of meltwater to the base of the glacier, when a basal conduit system is poorly developed.  This leads to high basal water pressure, which enhances sliding.  As the conduit system develops the basal water pressure declines as does sliding, even with more water. F8

 

 

 

Fig 8. Inland terminating glaciers (Sundal et al, 2011)

 

 

This is what has been recently reported to be the case by Sundal et al (2011).  The meltwater lubrication mechanism is real, but as observed is limited both in time and area impacted.  It is likely that, as on alpine glaciers, the seasonal speedup is offset by a greater slowdown late in the melt season.  Most observed acceleration due to high meltwater input has been on the order of several weeks, leading to a 10-20% flow increase for that period.  The role of supraglacial lakes in this has been a point of emphasis; Luthje et al, (2006) noted that the area covered by supraglacial lakes was independent of the summer melt rate, but controlled by topography.  This led Luthje et al (2006) to conclude that  the area covered by supraglacial lakes will remain constant even in a warmer climate.  This suggests that the enhancement of flow by the drainage of such lakes would be limited.

The land terminating glaciers such as Sukkertoppen, Russell and Mittivakkat are retreating significantly in response to global warming.   This is an indication of negative mass balance. The latter glacier in southeast Greenland has retreated 1200 meters since 1931 (Mernhild et al, 2011).  The Mernhild study identified this slow rate compared to the outlet glaciers and, based on mass balance observations, that the current surface mass balance can only support a glacier at most one-third its current size.   This indicates the slow but inexorable sensitivity of the non-calving glacier to surface mass balance change.  Moon and Joughin (2008) observed that the retreat of the land terminating glaciers was relatively minor from 1992-2007, averaging 5 m/year or less.  These glaciers are the equivalent in our banking system to the local banks:  there are many and they are sensitive, but the changes in a single one is not important. 

Type 3: Marine-terminating

Fast flowing marine terminating outlet glaciers of western and southeast Greenland (Rinks, Umiamako, Helheim, Jakobshavn, Epiq Sermia, etc).  These are the glaciers that drain the greatest area of the ice sheet and deliver the greatest volume to the oceans via calving.  The flux from many of the larger glaciers is over 10 km3/year (DMI).  Each of these glaciers is fast-flowing at the terminus; the fast flow section extends inland into the ice sheet up a sub-glacial trough.  The outlet glaciers act like a drain capturing ice from a larger area of the ice sheet than their narrow terminus would suggest.  

F9

 

 

Fig 9. Marine-terminating glaciers (Thomas et al, 2009)

 

 

Pelto et al (1989), a paper on the equilibrium state of the Jakobshavn Glacier, showed that the terminus had not changed significantly in 30 years; its velocity had also been consistent.  Furthermore, it was observed that the velocity was consistent throughout the seasons.  This indicated that the glacier velocity was not being impacted by the meltwater pulse of summer. 

Bob Thomas (NASA, 2004) and Terry Hughes (University of Maine, 1986) developed the basic mechanism of flow for the glacier that has proven to be true.  The outlet glaciers have a balance of forces at the calving front.  The fjord walls, the fjord base and the water column impede flow.  The slope of the glacier, its upglacier velocity and the height of the calving face strive to increase flow.  If the glacier thins than there is less friction at the calving front from the fjord walls and the fjord base, leading to greater flow.  The enhanced flow leads to retreat and further thinning, resulting in the thinning and the acceleration spreading inland.  In 1990 it was not envisioned that acceleration would occur as soon as it has, yet that was the motivation for the research. 

Figure10

Fig 10. Jakobshavn profile (Thomas et al, 2009)

In 2001 acceleration of Helheim, Jakobshavn and Kangerdlussaq Glacier caught the attention of the world.  By 2007, acceleration had been noted at all 34 marine terminating outlet glaciers observed.

The acceleration was not significantly seasonal; Howat et al (2010) noted a 15% seasonal component to the acceleration, it had spread inland and had led to retreat and thinning.  This demonstrated that the marine terminating glaciers were largely responding to a change in the balance of forces at the glacier front. 

Figure11

Fig 11. Ice flow velocity as color over SAR amplitude imagery of Jakobshavn Isbræ in a) February 1992 b) October 2000. In addition to color, speed is contoured with thin black lines at 1000 m/yr intervals and with thin white lines at 200, 400, 600, and 800 m/yr. Note how the ice front has calved back several kilometers from 1992 to 2000. Further retreat in subsequent years caused the glaciers speed to increase to 12,600 m/yr near the front. (Ian Joughlin, Big Ice)

The recent increases in outlet glacier discharge have always been coincident with floating tongue losses.   This causes reduced back pressure at the glacier front, letting up on the brakes; the resulting glacier thinning leads to less basal friction and further acceleration.  If the glacier front retreats into deeper water the process will continue and increase.  This is why understanding the basal slope changes inland of the calving fronts is crucial. Moon and Joughin (2008) observed the terminus change of 203 glaciers from 1992-2007 and noted a synchronous ice sheet wide retreat of tidewater outlet glaciers. The thinning could be due to increased surface melt, basal melt or most likely a combination of the two.  Moon and Joughin (2008) reported for the 2000-2006 period:

  • In the southeast quadrant 35 glaciers retreated an average of 174 m/year
  • In the eastern quadrant 21 glacier retreated an average of 106 m/year
  • In the northwest 64 glaciers retreated an average of 118 m/year. 

Each quadrant’s retreat increased markedly after 2000.  The largest of this group are comparable to the banks that are too big for our banking system to allow them to fail:  they drain a substantial portion of the entire ice sheet and reach so far into the ice sheet that their behavior can impact that of other adjacent glaciers.

Type 4: Marine-terminating in Shallow Water

Marine terminating glaciers outlet glaciers in shallower water (Humboldt, Cornell, Steenstrup etc).  These glaciers do have calving termini, but lack the large fast flowing feeder tongues extending into the glacier.  This is because there is not a topographic low under the ice sheet that funnels the flow.  Humboldt Glacier is the widest front of any Greenland Glacier, wider even than Petermann Glacier. 

Figure12

Fig 12. Humboldt profile (Thomas et al, 2009)

However, the velocity on average is low at 100 m/year and the base of the glacier is quite high.  This makes it difficult for a large calving retreat of the glacier to occur and extend inland.  Humboldt Glacier is retreating but as the velocity profile indicates the glacier, despite its size, does not tap dynamically into the center of the ice sheet.  These glaciers are substantial, but their failure (though significant for sea level) would not destabilize the ice sheet as a whole.

 Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers: Zebras no more

 Overall in Greenland, the rate of area loss in marine-terminating glaciers during the 2010 melt season (419 km2) was 3.4 times that of the previous 8 years. There is now clear evidence that the ice area loss rate of the past decade (averaging 120 km2/year) is greater than loss rates pre-2000.  The exceptional extension of the ablation season in 2010 in southern Greenland indicates the vulnerability of these areas to expanded melt regions (Box et al, 2010). 

The amazing aspect of Greenland glaciers is that (despite the specific variation in type, location specific fjord configuration, etc) their response has been as uniform and synchronous to global warming as has been observed.  If this warming of the world persists long enough, the  ice “banks” of Greenland will begin to fail.  Those with the greatest reserves on their asset sheets and the fastest turnover, and thus having the greatest potential contributions to sea level rise over time, are:

  • In the north, Zachariae (and to a lesser extent, Petermann)
  • The fast flowing marine terminating outlet glaciers of western and southeast Greenland (Rinks, Umiamako, Helheim, Jakobshavn, Epiq Sermia and Kangerdlussaq)

Further Reading & Resources

  1. Pelto et al (1989)
  2. Luthje et al (2006)
  3. Moon and Joughin (2008)
  4. Rignot and Steffen (2008)
  5. Thomas et al (2009)
  6. Van Den Broecke et al (2009)
  7. Box et al (2010)
  8. Howat et al (2010)
  9. Joughlin et al (2010)
  10. Mernhild et al (2011)
  11. Sundal et al (2011)
  12. Zwally et al (2011)
  13. The USGS Satellite Image Atlas of Greenland

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 69 out of 69:

  1. Adam we do not really care what you believe. Dan and I did not state what we believe in the post. It is what has been observed, there is not a singular glacier type that responds in the same way to climate. And yet the climate signal unlike anything we have seen before in Greenland is yielding a synchronous response in basically all Greenland glaciers. These large glaciers are generally slow to respond to climate fluctuations. However, the current climate deviation is large enough to have generated the widespread and ubiquitous response of glaciers.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Thank you, Mauri.
  2. "Albatross, I have not insulted you or anyone else on this blog, so I can't see why you are insulting me."

    Wrong, and please do not patronize me. Your dismissive attitude and ignorance on the science are offensive to me as a scientist.

    Let us start with basics. Do you accept the theory of AGW?
    0 0
  3. "For example, Polyak et al. (2010) conclude that the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice in unprecedented in the past 200 years and cannot be explained by known natural variability."

    Albatross, 200 years ago the planet was in the midst of the little ice age, therefore you would expect the ice to higher then.

    A 200 year period is two short a time span, when comparing changes in Arctic sea ice. You have to look back several thousand years and see what it was like.

    Read Mckay et al (2008)
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] The LIA is off-topic here.
  4. Adam... (Sorry moderator if this is going OT.) Just as a simple example of climate please watch this video. This is just a video of water vapor circulation on the planet. What it illustrates, though, is how varied and dynamic the climate system is. You are approaching the climate system as if it were some kind of homogenous unit where a given forcing is going to raise all ships in the harbor equally. This is just not the case. You have to look at what is happening in a very wide variety of locations over a longer span of time in order to see what effect a forcing is having on the broader climate system.

    Quite literally, what you are doing is looking at one segment of one data series for one location on the planet and trying to extrapolate what it "should" be doing in response to a global forcing mechanism.

    What we are doing here at SkS, and with Daniel's article, is looking at Greenland as one data point that is broadly consistent with the collective global data on temperature and physical responses (e.g., ice loss).

    You need to step back from the data a bit, Adam. You're missing the forest for the trees.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] "Mauri & Daniel's article"
  5. Albatross,

    “People, including me, have explained to you why those statements are wrong...and you simply ignore them or dismiss them.”

    “Wrong, and please do not patronize me. Your dismissive attitude and ignorance on the science are offensive to me as a scientist.”

    Why don't you actually provide examples of what you are saying, instead of just repeating 'faith claims'.

    I am skeptical of AGW, which should have been clear from my posts.

    Mspelto, once again, like I said,I agree with what you are saying in your article. I don't deny that there have been dramatic melting of glaciers. I just disagree, with the causes of it. ( -Snip-).
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic digression into causation snipped.
  6. Adam said... "Once again, that is evidence of warming, not human-caused warming."

    And once again, you are missing the forest for the trees. Warming, whatever the mechanism, must have a source. It doesn't just get warmer for no reason. Climate scientists have been looking at this intensively for decades now. We know current warming is not the sun. We know it's not part of the orbital pattern. We are clear that it's very unlikely to be cosmic rays. We know it's more than just internal variability (PDO, AMO, etc.). We know the radiative properties of CO2, the rising concentration rate in the atmosphere, and the role of GHG's in regulating the climate system.

    Literally, there is only one very unequivocal answer.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Everyone, please take the various components of Adam's misunderstandings to more appropriate threads. He has been advised that this post is indeed about the uniform response of Greenland's varied glacier types to the warming of the Arctic. Please confine your discussions on this thread to that topic. Your enthusiasm, admirable as it is, needs to be focused and measured. Please set a good example for our current (and future) guests and participants here. Thanks!
  7. Adam,

    Well how interesting. I made a typographical error, the Polyak paper is (of course) for the last "few thousand years. Adam, you clearly did not even bother to read the link that I provided.....

    That is the problem with 'skeptics' they do not listen, they do not consult and interpret the science and scientists properly--that is not true skepticism, it is ideology.

    Anyhow, enough of this I'll do as Daniel has asked. Sorry for the OT Daniel.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks! Feel free to engage Adam appropriately; I despair for your chances to reach him with the mindset he has displayed.
  8. Albatross, your statement is a bit hypocritical, since you obviously didn't read the paper I provided.

    From Mckay et al (2008)

    - “Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit

    much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term

    trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salin-

    ity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show

    that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been

    times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.


    “The millennial-scale variability in the

    eastern Chukchi Sea is characterized by quasi-cyclic periods

    of high SSS, high SST, and reduced sea-ice cover, which

    most probably reflects variations in the stratification of the

    upper water column. Such changes maybe related to tidal

    forcing and (or) large-scale mechanisms, such as AO/NAO-

    like oscillations. It is important to note that the amplitude of

    these millennial-scale changes in sea-surface conditions far

    exceed those observed at the end of the 20th century.


    Albatross, your own paper confirmed that Arctic sea ice has been melting since the 19th century, which I think you'll agree is long before we could have had any effect. Albatross, the reason the sea ice loss seemed to accelerate over the past three decades, is because that is only when satellites became available to monitor the ice. Before that we just had to use proxy data, which is not always accurate. Therefore whether the sea ice loss accelerated over the past 30 years is not certain.
    0 0
  9. Once again you seem to have deleted my comment, but I'll post it again anyway:

    Daniel Bailey

    “various components of Adam's misunderstanding”
    “I despair for your chances to reach him with the mindset he has displayed.”

    Once again, could you please actually provide evidence for your claims. It's no good simple making claims of faith. Why don't you actually show where I am wrong. I've looked back and seen that numerous comments I have written, in which I explained why Greenland climate is not dominated by co2, have been deleted.

    Why is that Daniel? Every time I confronted you or others on it, you just failed to answer me. All the science suggest that Greenland temperature variations are natural, which I explained in my comments, which you have now deleted. Daniel, if you can't answer my points, just admit it, instead of just deleting my comments.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You've been referred to Box's paper and a number of prior SkS threads on the topic of Greenland ice melt (there are at least 6, probably more). In addition, there are threads dealing with each objection to GHG-driven warming. Each of those threads have their own references to pertinent literature.

    Your position seems to be a variant of 'no, it's not' because you found a couple of papers that make it seem that way. Those papers are also discussed in depth on other threads. Do not expect others to do the comprehensive research that you should be doing if you are serious about this question.

  10. muoncounter, could you please actually provide the articles, which actually answer the points I brought up? Before my comments were deleted, everyone just kept ignoring what I was saying, or just making weak claims like 'Greenland does not represent the whole world', so therefore it doesn't matter. Muoncounter, as I explained in my comments, there is no correlation between co2 and Greenland temperature. If Co2 was driving Greenland warming, there should have been a correlation, but there wasn't. The current Greenland heat wave is exactly parallel to the previous heat wave, and shows no anthropogenic signal.

    Could you please provide peer reviewed papers answering those points. Nobody here has provided them yet.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic portions struck out. See my response to Albatross below for a plenitude of posts where your positions have been addressed, many times before. Veteran contributors here follow the Recent Comments listings, so any activity you place on any thread that interests them will show up. If, after reading the posts, you still have questions on them, place your questions there. Someone will answer you. But do it on the most appropriate thread, which this one is not.
  11. Adam,

    I am no hypocrite. I am, of course, familiar with McKay et al. (2008), in fact, Polyak was one of the co-authors on that paper. What you fail to note is that the McKay et al. study was for a single location, Polyak et al. (2010) was more comprehensive and included numerous locations across the basin. McKay et al.(2008) does not support your strawman argument/s-- climate scientists know very well that the climate has changed before and have some firm theories as to what was driving those changes (that is in part why they are so concerned about the rapidity and amplitude of the recent changes, but more of more concern is where we are heading if we continue on this path. Changes are happening faster than they anticipated and that doesn't bode well). Anyhow, the climate is changing again now, and this time there is a new/additional climate driver on the block-- humans via elevated GHGs from burning of FFs and land use change. Your logical fallacy suggests that because there were fires before humans arrived on the scene, there is no way that humans are causing fires now.

    I am trying to find a thread where to continue this without further detracting from Mauri's and Daniel's efforts. Ideas Daniel or Muoncounter?
    0 0
  12. ( -Snip- )
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic portion snipped. Adam, by insisting on staying on your off-topic message on this thread, you force the moderation of your own comments. Thus, you are doing it to yourself. See my response to Albatross for an initial list (there is amply more) of posts with comment threads delving more deeply into your claims and positions. To aid in your argumentation, I suggest reading the posts before commenting on them, as your points may have already been covered and dealt with thoroughly, previously. Thanks!
  13. Adam... The normal course here would be to say what thread you would like to discuss these issues on and post a link that every one can follow to that location. You need to remember that the topic here is Greenland glaciers.
    0 0
  14. Adam... I've posted a response to you on the "It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940" thread.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Thank-you!
  15. Daniel Bailey and Ron Honeycutt, Albatross was the one that brought up the state of Arctic sea ice, not me. I was simply answering his points.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] And you are welcome to respond to him on the Arctic Sea ICE thread of your choice (see here for a listing, provided you also place a link here to that comment you place there. See Rob's previous comment here for a proper example.
  16. Back to Jakobshavn. Neven has posted some 2011 spring fjord observations. This is the real value of having more sharp eyes perusing the images, asking questions, making observations.
    0 0
  17. 9 DB

    Thanks for the comments. I'm not denying the basal melt occured just wondering about the mechanism involved. An ice cube in a glass will melt faster if warmer water is used but also if the water is stirred. I couldn't see in the paper where it showed the underlying mechanism for any presumed changes in the summarine melt.

    I just found this interesting paper from NaturePrecedings 2011 which seems to go some way to answering that question. The intro is illuminating. These authors seem to suggest that estimates of base melt in Rignot and Steffen 2008 are in fact "estimated as a residual from mass balance calculations using ice-flow and ice-thickness data", i.e. they aren't direct measurements. In fact this paper claims to be the first to make direct measurements.

    I'll just highlight this section towards the end which seems to suggest that it still unclear whether it's warmer waters or circulation changes that are driving changes in submarine melt.

    "This adds weight to the possibility that the change in Greenland glacier dynamics over the last decade was not
    simply a result of the warming the Atlantic waters (estimated to be roughly 1 °C10 and hence comparable to the seasonal variation) but also a consequence of the vertical displacement of the Atlantic/Arctic interface due to changes in the large scale ocean circulation."

    Either way this seems to be a new insight into the science and worth reading. Enjoy.

    (Here's another version of their work which again seems to highlight the potential role of circulation changes as an alternate (or complementary) driver of submarine warming.)
    0 0
  18. Just been reading a piece from Tenney Naumer about a new paper (A reconstruction of annual Greenland ice melt extent, 1784–2009) which was out of date (and therefore wrong) as soon as it was published. However, when you see the names involved (especially Knappenburger and Michaels), I suppose it isn't surprising but this is a disgraceful example of cherry-picking disinformation. Is it all a political game to these people, where reality doesn't count unless they can create it themselves ? Shameful.
    0 0
  19. Of course there is no direct measurement of basal melt, however given the flotation relationship. If you know the change in surface elevation of a point over time that is on top of floating ice, and you know the surface melt rate, than any other change in surface height has to come from bottom melt, for areas with low velocity during a specific melt season.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us