Greenland - What Do We Know, What Is The Long Term Future And Is There Any Evidence Of A Melt Out?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Try to explain why Antarctic sea ice is at approaching record levels G W? according to all IPPC previous reports the opposite should be happening.Why is so called global warming not affecting the Antarctic because simply gw isen"t taking place .No doubt we will hearing about the record Antarctic sea melt in the next few months with no mention that the record melt was due to the record sea ice volume.

Perhaps a read through the Antarctic thread might help with that? I don't think the Antarctic sea ice melt ever makes the headlines though, does it?

And please Keith, it's the *IPCC*, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Gray-Wolf]

The majority of the planets ice is not held in the Antarctic ocean K.L. but in it's ice sheet. My advice to you would be to read up on the buttress effect of the ice shelfs there with particular attention to the 'grounding line'? Then get up to speed on the P.I.G. and the past 20 years of changes there and then follow the warm waters progress toward Ross and the changes it's arrival there will instigate?

As with G.I.S. both E.A.I.S. and W.A.I.S. will not see a linear decline but will be one of doubling of mass loss over a period of time. My guess is you'd better wish never to see that 'doubling' occur in a ten year or less interval for any of our major ice sheets?

On which note I'm left wondering as to the losses across Greenland this year? We had a paper ,last year, comforting us with tales that losses had peaked in 2010 and were now throttling back? I wonder if we put any credence in that paper today?

[keithlucky]

You can also read http://www.geo.corne.../AMO_Seasaw.pdf

Edited September 20, 2012 by keithlucky

[Interitus]

You can also read http://www.geo.corne.../AMO_Seasaw.pdf

That's a good article, thanks for linking. But if you notice looking beyond the seesaw effect, overall, warming has occurred over both the Arctic and Antarctic during the time period from 1903-2008 (as shown in figure 1).

Edited September 20, 2012 by Interitus

[keithlucky]

Just a few snippets from previous news papers over the yrs .

1922: 'Extraordinary warmth in the Arctic during the last few years' -- Polar ice sheet to melt down? -- Scientists astonished by Arctic warming. Northern United States to become “sub-tropical.â€

1923 Shock News: 'Radical' Climate Change Melting Down The North Pole

1935: Russian Ship Sailed 500 Miles From The North Pole In Ice-Free Water catastrophic proportions and people living in lowlands along their shores would be inundated...temps in Arctic had increased 10 deg. F since 1900–an 'enormous' rise'

Flashback 1947 : International Agency Needed To Stop The Arctic Meltdown: Same story – different millennium -- 'May 30 1947.-The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of ocean with resultant widespread inundation if Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland icecap should reduce at same rate as present melting in Arctic...'

Flashback 1947: 'Alarming' Rise In Arctic Temperatures To Melt Greenland And Flood The Coasts Posted on August 18, 2012 -- Ten degrees of warming in Arctic with CO2 at 320 PPM'

We've heard it all before! 1922 Tipping Point: Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse Will Lead To Biblical Flood

July 4, 1907: Arctic Heat Record – Hottest Place In Europe

[knocker]

I like the quote from the last link.

Woe unto the apostates who dare to gaze at the southern ice anomaly. The high priests have warned that only the northern anomaly may be seen by mortals.

All who turn their head to look at the southern anomaly, shall be transformed into a pillar of salt.

And

PBS reported that 97% of Greenland melted and turned green during three days this summer, but Greenland still seems to be covered with ice.

I'm off for an injection.

Edited September 20, 2012 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just a few snippets from previous news papers over the yrs .

1922: 'Extraordinary warmth in the Arctic during the last few years' -- Polar ice sheet to melt down? -- Scientists astonished by Arctic warming. Northern United States to become “sub-tropical.â€

1923 Shock News: 'Radical' Climate Change Melting Down The North Pole

1935: Russian Ship Sailed 500 Miles From The North Pole In Ice-Free Water catastrophic proportions and people living in lowlands along their shores would be inundated...temps in Arctic had increased 10 deg. F since 1900–an 'enormous' rise'

Flashback 1947 : International Agency Needed To Stop The Arctic Meltdown: Same story – different millennium -- 'May 30 1947.-The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of ocean with resultant widespread inundation if Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland icecap should reduce at same rate as present melting in Arctic...'

Flashback 1947: 'Alarming' Rise In Arctic Temperatures To Melt Greenland And Flood The Coasts Posted on August 18, 2012 -- Ten degrees of warming in Arctic with CO2 at 320 PPM'

We've heard it all before! 1922 Tipping Point: Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse Will Lead To Biblical Flood

July 4, 1907: Arctic Heat Record – Hottest Place In Europe

They kinda exaggerated and mis-represented most of those new paper bits, didn't they?

Any time where a condition is put on, they just ignored it?

For example, from the paper in the 5th link "if the Arctic ice regions and the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions, and people living in lowlands along the shores would be inundated".

But for the headline Morano and Goddard use " 'Alarming' Rise In Arctic Temperatures To Melt Greenland And Flood The Coasts"

Not really accurate is it?

[stewfox]

They kinda exaggerated and mis-represented most of those new paper bits, didn't they?

Any time where a condition is put on, they just ignored it?

For example, from the paper in the 5th link "if the Arctic ice regions and the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions, and people living in lowlands along the shores would be inundated".

But for the headline Morano and Goddard use " 'Alarming' Rise In Arctic Temperatures To Melt Greenland And Flood The Coasts"

Not really accurate is it?

The 1935 post makes a good read, we cant dismiss these things because they dont suit.

[BornFromTheVoid]

The 1935 post makes a good read, we cant dismiss these things because they dont suit.

Not sure I get ya? Don't suit what? Julienne Stroeve aboard a greenpeace ship managed to get to 350 miles from the pole a few days ago, and they weren't attempting a new record. There was also ice free water up to 87N this year, so under 210 miles from the pole.

The northward extent of ice around the Franz Joseph Islands and Svalbard is largely controlled by wind, but 82.6N is nothing unusual in recent years at least, even this year it's up past 84N in that region

Edited September 20, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[Interitus]

The 1935 post makes a good read, we cant dismiss these things because they dont suit.

The 1930s and 40s were a relatively warm period in the Arctic and we know that there was some ice retreat at that time, but nobody can seriously compare that year with this - http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/1935/1935_08.jpg

[keithlucky]

You can, i cannot find the link but in 1956 the famous pictures of USSR submarines sailing through the north pole the first week of May with just a odd block of ice remaining.

[Methuselah]

The 1935 post makes a good read, we cant dismiss these things because they dont suit.

'don't suit'? Facts are facts in my book...

[Gray-Wolf]

The facts are the facts and the fact of the melt ,Greenland and the Arctic, this year has been exceptional and far beyond anything we have witnessed before. I am sure that we have seen extended melt in regions but , and the record/data show this quite plainly, never across the whole basin. And whilst we're doing this denialist twaddle until Antarctic sea ice is 40% greater than the past 30 year mean then it does not 'balance out' the Arctic losses..get it? Thought not.

[minus 9]

the fact is antartic sea ice is at near record anounts . why should this be.happening if temps are warming down there. plus artic average tempshave been on the normal side this year.

[knocker]

the fact is antartic sea ice is at near record anounts . why should this be.happening if temps are warming down there. plus artic average tempshave been on the normal side this year.

See antarctic thread. Rather depends how you define normal.

https://sites.google...rclimategraphs/

And as this is in the Greenland thread for some reason. The 2012 data is certainly going to show a further increase. Apologies I know I have posted this before.

[4wd]

Julienne Stroeve aboard a greenpeace ship managed to get to 350 miles from the pole a few days ago, and they weren't attempting a new record. There was also ice free water up to 87N this year, so under 210 miles from the pole.

They also have satellite images and super accurate GPS to help them find areas with least ice.

The 1935 voyage was more or less random heading north and they found 'ice free' water.

Far too much certainty is being proclaimed about our knowledge of what ice does and doesn't do up there under normal cyclical events.

The tendency from some quarters to attribute practically all the change to human activity is laughable really.

Soot particles are probably having more effect than anything to do with CO2 especially on Greenland.

I do wonder how the alarmists will play it if ice does start to rebound over the next decade.

Since reduced ice is the only tangible 'evidence' they can ascribe to warming the amount of attention given is little short of hysterical especially with all the doomsday predictions of feedbacks and such.

I was looking at Nevens blog the other day and the comments were not far from trying to decide if we would be forced to eat our children in in 2014 or 2015.

It should be noted that the models predicted that CO2 induced warming would first become noticeable 'at the poles'.

i.e. not at one pole - both of them.

Since this is not the case it might be assumed that the models are not correct or the increased melt is not du to CO2 induced warming but to something else.

The clear candidate is increase sea temperatures as a result of high solar activity late century.

This is something which clearly has more effect on the Arctic than the Antarctic.

Add in the dust/soot pollution, again a Northern Hemisphere specialty and CO2 could very well have nothing much to do with it.

[Methuselah]

And, no doubt, the travelled in ice-breakers too...But, so what? Where's the relevance to this year's unprecedented melt?

[4wd]

And, no doubt, the travelled in ice-breakers too...But, so what? Where's the relevance to this year's unprecedented melt?

That it isn't as unprecedented as some are claiming to have open water much further north at some times than others.

[Methuselah]

And how 'unprecedented' is that?

[BornFromTheVoid]

They also have satellite images and super accurate GPS to help them find areas with least ice.

The 1935 voyage was more or less random heading north and they found 'ice free' water.

Far too much certainty is being proclaimed about our knowledge of what ice does and doesn't do up there under normal cyclical events.

The tendency from some quarters to attribute practically all the change to human activity is laughable really.

Soot particles are probably having more effect than anything to do with CO2 especially on Greenland.

Yep, sailors in the Arctic back then just went of in random direction, never really had a clue!

The change attributed to humans is done so through scientific investigations and is based on evidence and analysis. We have a pretty good hold on how natural cycles affect the ice. But I'm sure all your probables and maybes are much more likely....

I do wonder how the alarmists will play it if ice does start to rebound over the next decade.

Since reduced ice is the only tangible 'evidence' they can ascribe to warming the amount of attention given is little short of hysterical especially with all the doomsday predictions of feedbacks and such.

I was looking at Nevens blog the other day and the comments were not far from trying to decide if we would be forced to eat our children in in 2014 or 2015.

If the ice begins to rebound, a lot of work will be done to figure out why. Modelling, in-situ measurements, statistical analysis, satellite analysis... ya know, all the sciencey malarkey!

There is loads of evidence for AGW, from the shifting of plant and animal species northward and into higher elevations, there's the temperature record, changes to the height of the tropopause, ocean warming, etc.

Your point of taking some comments from a blog? Because I'm sure you know well, that libraries could be filled with imbecilic nonsense spouted by deniers on a hourly basis.

It should be noted that the models predicted that CO2 induced warming would first become noticeable 'at the poles'.

i.e. not at one pole - both of them.

Since this is not the case it might be assumed that the models are not correct or the increased melt is not du to CO2 induced warming but to something else.

The clear candidate is increase sea temperatures as a result of high solar activity late century.

This is something which clearly has more effect on the Arctic than the Antarctic.

Add in the dust/soot pollution, again a Northern Hemisphere specialty and CO2 could very well have nothing much to do with it.

It was predicted that warming would be more pronounced at the poles, which it is!

Numerous studies have been done into the solar link, even plenty of times by sceptics, trying to tie it with recent temperature changes and it just doesn't work. Despite declining low solar activity since the 60s, the oceans continue to warm.

[Methuselah]

Wasn't it also predicted (also correctly, as it happens) that GW would cause an increase in Antarctican snowfall/ice-cover, in the short-term? I see no inconsistency...

[4wd]

http://multi-science...16k4x07528q554/

Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming.

Behind paywall but abstract goes:

Abstract

After two thousand years of slow cooling Arctic, warming suddenly began more than a century ago. It has continued, with a break in the middle, until this day. The rapid start of this warming rules out the greenhouse effect as its cause. Apparently the time scale of the accumulation of CO₂ in the air and the Arctic warming does not match. It is likely that the cause of this warming was a relatively sudden rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that directed warm currents into the Arctic Ocean. All observations of Arctic warming can be accounted for as consequences of these flows of warm water to the Arctic. This explains why all attempts to model Arctic warming have failed: models set up for greenhouse warming are the wrong models for non-greenhouse warming. It turns out that satellites which have been measuring global temperature for the last 31 years cannot see any sign of current warming that supposedly started in the late seventies. This absence of warming in the satellite record is in accord with the observations of Ferenc Miskolczi on IR absorption by the atmosphere. What warming satellites do see is only a short spurt that began with the super El Nino of 1998, raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years, and then stopped. It was of oceanic origin.

Edited September 22, 2012 by 4wd

[Methuselah]

What's a 'warming satellite'?

[BornFromTheVoid]

I read the abstract, thought it sounded very odd for a peer reviewed publication. So after a little reading, I wouldn't take too much notice of what's published in that journal, it's appears little more than a platform for "sceptics", run by "sceptics".

http://www.carbonbri...and-environment

The journal is published by Multi-Science Publishing Company, which states that it publishes journals that "fill gaps in the scientific literature". The journal describes itself as "an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use". It has been described by Real Climate, a website run by scientists working on research on the earth's climate, as "a journal for climate sceptics", and papers published in Energy and Environment have been widely cited by climate sceptics as alternative perspectives on climate change science.

Energy and Environment is edited by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Emeritus Reader for the Department of Geography at the University of Hull. In correspondence with the Chronicle of Higher Education, she stated that by editing Energy and Environment she is "following [her] political agenda - a bit, anyway". She identifies herself as a climate sceptic, and states that in her role as editor she has "published peer-reviewed papers and opinion pieces by all the best known 'sceptics'" and knows a number of them "personally". She suggests that Energy and Environment has therefore "attracted, inter alia, papers from IPCC-critical and therefore IPCC-excluded scientists".

Dr Boehmer-Christiansen has argued that "most climate change [research] since the late 1980s has been government- and grant-funded with the clearly stated objective that it must support a decarbonisation agenda for the energy sector".

Energy and Environment is co-edited by Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, previously a part-time Senior Lecturer in Sports Science at Liverpool John Moores University, and a prominent critic of the climate change research community.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think the total lack of any mention of the paper, over the period since it's release, does drive a bit of wondering? The worry is the amount of effort to find the paper in the first place? I imagine most of us trawl the major science papers/blogs to see what's new so just to come across such old material, with such odd claims? Ah well, back to the squirrels!