Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Climate Change Blog: Record Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Brett Anderson
post Jan 24 2011, 08:29 AM
Post #1




Rank: F5 Superstorm
Group Icon

Group: AccuWeather_Employee
Posts: 1,232
Joined: 22-January 08
Member No.: 12,854





Researchers from the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at The City College of New York have determined that 2010 set new records for the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Melting in some areas, especially the western and southwestern regions of Greenland, was 50 days longer than average. The melt season started early at the end of April and ended unusually late Read the full article


--------------------
Brett Anderson
Expert senior meteorologist
AccuWeather.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jan 24 2011, 01:16 PM
Post #2




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





The Arctic report card from October 2010 (after the melting season ended) on Greenland is also showing similar situation and gives some additional figures. The card can be found here.

It is clear there is a definite trend with the Greenland glacier lost over the last 30 or more years. But 2010 really stand out of the declining rate by quite a margin and is really exceptional. If 2010 exceptional records can be explain partly with the NAO situation, the longer term trend is still showing a melting condition behond any cyclic pattern. The evolution of the difference between the snowfall and the run-off is increasing, and that is not unique to 2010 but over the last 11 years. Also, many places are seing the permafrost melting - causing dangerous situations for buildings and installations.

All and all, continuous demonstration and proofs of a rapidly warming situation.

The full Arctic report card can be downloaded here. The work of 69 researchers from 14 countries (International Arctic Council) and is based upon 174 scientific references.

This post has been edited by Regg: Jan 24 2011, 02:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jan 24 2011, 03:29 PM
Post #3




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





Another article in the news. Looks like 2011 is starting or prolonging the situation (even if it is cold in the east for the past two days - it won't last according to current forecast).

Here's a news about the ice situation in the East (Canada / Maritimes) : Lack of ice on Miramichi Bay causes concern corrected

Ice data and maps for the Canadian East Coast can be found here .

Also, The Canadian report about the 2010 ice summer can be download from that page. There a lot of graphical informations in that publication about the 2010 situation.

Seasonal Summary for the Canadian Arctic Summer 2010

Very easy to read and understand. Monthly account of the situation for the different regions.

This post has been edited by Regg: Jan 25 2011, 11:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FRANKOK
post Jan 24 2011, 04:55 PM
Post #4




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 10-December 09
Member No.: 20,149





article: The capital of Greenland, Nuuk, had the warmest spring and summer since records began in 1873, according to EurekAlert.

Was 1873 about when the Vikings who flourished in the HOT medieval period of 900 to 1300 returned to join the Eskimos after the little ice age decimated them in GREENland?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wolfheinl
post Jan 25 2011, 08:00 AM
Post #5




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 21-June 10
From: Beaver, PA
Member No.: 23,013





QUOTE(Regg @ Jan 24 2011, 03:29 PM) *
Another article in the news. Looks like 2011 is starting or prolonging the situation (even if it is cold in the east for the past two days - it won't last according to current forecast).

Here's a news about the ice situation in the East (Canada / Maritimes) : Lack of ice on Miramichi Bay causes concern.

Ice data and maps for the Canadian East Coast can be found here .

Also, The Canadian report about the 2010 ice summer can be download from that page. There a lot of graphical informations in that publication about the 2010 situation.

Seasonal Summary for the Canadian Arctic Summer 2010

Very easy to read and understand. Monthly account of the situation for the different regions.


Regg, The first link doesn't connect... Thanks, Jackie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_TheATHiker_*
post Jan 25 2011, 09:33 AM
Post #6







Guests








QUOTE(Regg @ Jan 24 2011, 03:29 PM) *
Seasonal Summary for the Canadian Arctic Summer 2010

Very easy to read and understand. Monthly account of the situation for the different regions.


The West Greenland Current and the more resent negative arctic oscillations event last year.
Last year during the extreme negative AO, the wind patterns change ever so briefly the Gulf Stream to connect with The West Greenland Current which appears to be a one time weather event. Considering again extremes in the negative arctic oscillations yet again and if this becomes a change in the general circulation pattern. I wonder what the overall consequences of a connect between the two currents would be?

Any thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jan 25 2011, 11:47 AM
Post #7




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





QUOTE(wolfheinl @ Jan 25 2011, 08:00 AM) *
Regg, The first link doesn't connect... Thanks, Jackie

Sorry, the news paper seems to have a strange way to archive their news.

Here's the new link Lack of ice on Miramichi Bay causes concern

Original post corrected as well

This post has been edited by Regg: Jan 25 2011, 11:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Larry S.
post Jan 25 2011, 01:34 PM
Post #8




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 100
Joined: 26-January 08
From: Stamford, CT
Member No.: 13,200





Since we are talking about Greenland, here is a very interesting post just put up on Watts' site.

MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGES

Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook,
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/east...-ice-core-data/

The GISP2 ice core data definitely shows strong heating and cooling oscillations going back 25,000 years. The data also illustrates that the current warming 'pales in significance' to previous warming periods.

One other thing the core data further confirms is "Neither the abrupt climatic cooling nor the warming that followed was preceded by atmospheric CO2 changes." If that is the case, then the AGW theory is dead.

This data analysis is further corroborated by geological, historical, and archaeological data which are already known about these periods of earth's history.

This is a historical data analysis, not analysis by computer models and proxy data. I fail to see any reason to invalidate anything in Dr. Easterbrook's post.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mptc
post Jan 25 2011, 05:53 PM
Post #9




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-December 10
Member No.: 24,940





QUOTE(Brett Anderson @ Jan 24 2011, 06:29 AM) *
Researchers from the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at The City College of New York have determined that 2010 set new records for the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Melting in some areas, especially the western and southwestern regions of Greenland, was 50 days longer than average. The melt season started early at the end of April and ended unusually late
Read the full article


Of course it's a new record for melting. I think I would die of a hear attack if some researcher somewhere published
a study that said everything is normal. The world will not end and the ice sheets in Greenland will be there a thousand years
from now (which they will).

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01...nland-meltdown/

Same old story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Travis S.
post Jan 25 2011, 08:39 PM
Post #10




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 19-April 10
From: Western Washington
Member No.: 22,570





QUOTE(mptc @ Jan 25 2011, 02:53 PM) *
Of course it's a new record for melting. I think I would die of a hear attack if some researcher somewhere published
a study that said everything is normal. The world will not end and the ice sheets in Greenland will be there a thousand years
from now (which they will).

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01...nland-meltdown/

Same old story.


The one "official" weather station on the Greenland ice sheet is the Summit station, which is not only in the north-central region, far from any of the primary melt areas, but also at 10,500 feet above sea level. As such, it is probably one of the coldest places on the entire ice sheet. I think just about everyone can agree that not much melting SHOULD be happening there.

Steve Goddard (author of your link) has essentially claimed that since there's no melting going on in the coldest, highest part of Greenland, then the melting elsewhere can't be all that important or significant. You tell me...if it's below freezing at the top of Mt. Everest, does that mean that a 20 million ton block of ice a couple hundred miles away on the Indian coast won't melt much? That's essentially what Goddard is claiming.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jan 25 2011, 11:14 PM
Post #11




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





Here's the map about the claims made by the paper Brett referenced (the object of this subject). To it i marked the GISP2 ice core location and at the same time the location of the so called ''unique'' station in Greenland.



In what are the GISP2 data or the weather station data located between 8000 to 10,000 feet above the area from this subject, related to it. For what it worth, tonight on January 2011 - the temps on Greenland's west coast at 21:00 was at or above the freezing point on a very wide area. Please pass the information to Goddard as he does'nt like it when i write true facts on his website. Yes currently tonight in this winter the ice and snow pack is still melting in Greenland.

Please remember in the case of the GISP2 core, the most recent ice was from the late 1800′s. The glacial section above it was still composed of snow and firn and is mostly unreliable to establish without error the temps since 1800 as the snow can be corrupted by the surrounding melting.

By the way, someone is claiming the Easterbrook analysis is not made from a proxy... The GISP2 ice core is a proxy (as any ice core)

In 2004 in a US senate comitee, Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski - Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory claimed the following :
QUOTE
Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria

Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski is a well known skeptic, and a star within the denial blogs club. Are the proxies right or wrong.

Talking about the value of ice core proxies. I would like the members saying they are of great values to shout ''AGW is false'' based on there very popular disinformation blog's latest post. Maybe they should read what the same blog said on january 2010, or on another blog very recently (december 2010) saying that. Those members and those blogs should come to an agreement as to if the ice core proxies are valid or not and put there text into a straight line to get the same song every day as it is hard to follow if on one day the ice core proxies are the most hemeritus values, and the worst and unreliable sources on the next day.

This post has been edited by Regg: Jan 26 2011, 09:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Larry S.
post Jan 26 2011, 10:26 AM
Post #12




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 100
Joined: 26-January 08
From: Stamford, CT
Member No.: 13,200





QUOTE(Regg @ Jan 25 2011, 11:14 PM) *
Here's the map about the claims made by the paper Brett referenced (the object of this subject). To it i marked the GISP2 ice core location and at the same time the location of the so called ''unique'' station in Greenland.



In what are the GISP2 data or the weather station data located between 8000 to 10,000 feet above the area from this subject, related to it. For what it worth, tonight on January 2011 - the temps on Greenland's west coast at 21:00 was at or above the freezing point on a very wide area. Please pass the information to Goddard as he does'nt like it when i write true facts on his website. Yes currently tonight in this winter the ice and snow pack is still melting in Greenland.

Please remember in the case of the GISP2 core, the most recent ice was from the late 1800′s. The glacial section above it was still composed of snow and firn and is mostly unreliable to establish without error the temps since 1800 as the snow can be corrupted by the surrounding melting.

By the way, someone is claiming the Easterbrook analysis is not made from a proxy... The GISP2 ice core is a proxy (as any ice core)

In 2004 in a US senate comitee, Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski - Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory claimed the following :

Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski is a well known skeptic, and a star within the denial blogs club. Are the proxies right or wrong.

Talking about the value of ice core proxies. I would like the members saying they are of great values to shout ''AGW is false'' based on there very popular disinformation blog's latest post. Maybe they should read what the same blog said on january 2010, or on another blog very recently (december 2010) saying that. Those members and those blogs should come to an agreement as to if the ice core proxies are valid or not and put there text into a straight line to get the same song every day as it is hard to follow if on one day the ice core proxies are the most hemeritus values, and the worst and unreliable sources on the next day.


I said "analysis by computer models AND proxy data". I am by no means dismissing all proxy data by itself, and I am free to select which proxy data makes sense to me (with proper scientific support). For example, I don't think tree rings are a valid temperature proxy as they can be easily influenced by a handful of other factors - which cannot be made into constants as easily as some papers on the subject would like you to believe.

I think Dr. Easterbrook's summary is a good place to start. It certainly, on its own, will not be the "I told you so" about how AGW is not happening. You would need to take a look at few more pieces of the puzzle to come to that conclusion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_TheATHiker_*
post Jan 26 2011, 11:50 AM
Post #13







Guests








QUOTE(Larry S. @ Jan 26 2011, 10:26 AM) *
I think Dr. Easterbrook's summary is a good place to start. It certainly, on its own, will not be the "I told you so" about how AGW is not happening. You would need to take a look at few more pieces of the puzzle to come to that conclusion.


Fabricated Graph of GISP2! He continues to represent the temperature data from Cuffey & Clow/Alley 2000 as reaching up to the present day, when the most recent data point in the series is 1855.

Considering Watts site is doing now. Currently by Dr. Martin Hertzberg is either woefully ignorant or intentional fabricating how The Milankovitch Cycles work. I have known how it works for over thirty-five years and never seen such a debacle.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/comm...climate-change/

I would recommend a real science website or journals and not Watts disinformation he gives.

FYI: Mr. Don Easterbrook is a professor emeritus at Western Washington University not a doctor.

This post has been edited by TheATHiker: Jan 26 2011, 11:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mptc
post Jan 26 2011, 11:53 AM
Post #14




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-December 10
Member No.: 24,940





QUOTE(Travis S. @ Jan 25 2011, 06:39 PM) *
The one "official" weather station on the Greenland ice sheet is the Summit station, which is not only in the north-central region, far from any of the primary melt areas, but also at 10,500 feet above sea level. As such, it is probably one of the coldest places on the entire ice sheet. I think just about everyone can agree that not much melting SHOULD be happening there.

Steve Goddard (author of your link) has essentially claimed that since there's no melting going on in the coldest, highest part of Greenland, then the melting elsewhere can't be all that important or significant. You tell me...if it's below freezing at the top of Mt. Everest, does that mean that a 20 million ton block of ice a couple hundred miles away on the Indian coast won't melt much? That's essentially what Goddard is claiming.


Interesting...it is valid to project the same temperature anomolies 740 miles away (1200 km smoothing) (at a variety of elevations using satellite, fly over and ground measurements), but it is not valid for purposes of ice measurements.

mptc


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jan 26 2011, 12:51 PM
Post #15




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





QUOTE(mptc @ Jan 26 2011, 11:53 AM) *
Interesting...it is valid to project the same temperature anomolies 740 miles away (1200 km smoothing) (at a variety of elevations using satellite, fly over and ground measurements), but it is not valid for purposes of ice measurements.

mptc

No the measurements are all valid - but to say that something happening 10,000 feet above is directly related to what has been reported is really twisting the reality - and that's what Goddard did and is often seen doing. That's the reason many of us are always jumping on any of his statements as he is a master of disinformation, as he just demonstrated again.

This post has been edited by Regg: Jan 26 2011, 12:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Travis S.
post Jan 26 2011, 01:27 PM
Post #16




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 19-April 10
From: Western Washington
Member No.: 22,570





QUOTE(mptc @ Jan 26 2011, 08:53 AM) *
Interesting...it is valid to project the same temperature anomolies 740 miles away (1200 km smoothing) (at a variety of elevations using satellite, fly over and ground measurements), but it is not valid for purposes of ice measurements.

mptc


If it was actualy temperatures, then no, of course not. That's why it's ridiculous to claim something about melt near sea level by using a reference point at 10,500 feet. However, temperature anomalies (difference from normal) DO tend to correlate well over distance and altitude, in part because neighboring areas tend to deal with the same air mass whatever their elevation is. If it's 5 degrees above normal in Wichita, it's likely to be similar to that in St. Louis as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mptc
post Jan 26 2011, 01:48 PM
Post #17




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-December 10
Member No.: 24,940





QUOTE(Travis S. @ Jan 26 2011, 11:27 AM) *
If it was actualy temperatures, then no, of course not. That's why it's ridiculous to claim something about melt near sea level by using a reference point at 10,500 feet. However, temperature anomalies (difference from normal) DO tend to correlate well over distance and altitude, in part because neighboring areas tend to deal with the same air mass whatever their elevation is. If it's 5 degrees above normal in Wichita, it's likely to be similar to that in St. Louis as well.


No really. Here is south central Montana the temperatures have been moderate. You go 1200 km east into western N.D. or north into Canada and it is a completely different story. It has been that way for most of the winter. So your analogy is rendered invalid as is the 1200 km smoothing.

mptc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_TheATHiker_*
post Jan 26 2011, 02:57 PM
Post #18







Guests








QUOTE(mptc @ Jan 26 2011, 01:48 PM) *
So your analogy is rendered invalid as is the 1200 km smoothing.

mptc


Stop with the false information that GISS show exaggerated warming. Let’s just take a look at the various temperature measurements and use the same base line. And this is what you get.

attribution-Skeptical Science


Note how GISS fits also to you can see the extreme in the UAH on El Niño and La Niña.
Now I full understand that disinformation site have to create a fake controversy to help people ignore the science. That why use see similar trend in all the data sets
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mptc
post Jan 26 2011, 04:04 PM
Post #19




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 30-December 10
Member No.: 24,940





QUOTE(TheATHiker @ Jan 26 2011, 12:57 PM) *
Stop with the false information that GISS show exaggerated warming. Let’s just take a look at the various temperature measurements and use the same base line. And this is what you get.

attribution-Skeptical Science
Note how GISS fits also to you can see the extreme in the UAH on El Niño and La Niña.
Now I full understand that disinformation site have to create a fake controversy to help people ignore the science. That why use see similar trend in all the data sets


Given the fact that HadCRUT has been scandalized by the leaked emails (i.e. Climategate) and GISS and NOAA refuse FOI inquiries and given the site from which you've taken the graph we will leave your graph where it is. See it works both ways. You dismiss the sources of those scientists with opposing views, so can I. But this is off the subject. The initial story statest this..."Remote sensing data, surface observations and models indicate new records in 2010 for surface melt..." What is remote sensing data? Of the three methods used here, which were used most? Models?, remote sensing data?

This entire subject has been scandalized by politics. Fault lies partly with irresponsible reporting, part with grant-chasing, drive-by scientists and part with a public with a short attention span. It ceases to be science when debate is stymied. One can go back over 100 years and look at print media headlines and see the the pendulum swing between sensationalist views of a coming ice age to a coming the coming heat/drought age and back again. A perfect example is the H1N1 scare of last year. But then this is off the subject. I guess my point is that long after you and I are gone, the ice of Greenland will be there.

mptc

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Regg
post Jan 26 2011, 04:59 PM
Post #20




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,141
Joined: 4-March 10
From: Near Montreal - north shore
Member No.: 22,222





QUOTE(mptc @ Jan 26 2011, 04:04 PM) *
Given the fact that HadCRUT has been scandalized by the leaked emails (i.e. Climategate) and GISS and NOAA refuse FOI inquiries and given the site from which you've taken the graph we will leave your graph where it is. See it works both ways. You dismiss the sources of those scientists with opposing views, so can I. But this is off the subject. The initial story statest this..."Remote sensing data, surface observations and models indicate new records in 2010 for surface melt..." What is remote sensing data? Of the three methods used here, which were used most? Models?, remote sensing data?

This entire subject has been scandalized by politics. Fault lies partly with irresponsible reporting, part with grant-chasing, drive-by scientists and part with a public with a short attention span. It ceases to be science when debate is stymied. One can go back over 100 years and look at print media headlines and see the the pendulum swing between sensationalist views of a coming ice age to a coming the coming heat/drought age and back again. A perfect example is the H1N1 scare of last year. But then this is off the subject. I guess my point is that long after you and I are gone, the ice of Greenland will be there.

mptc


Your opinion. Allowed me (us) to disagree. The point made are all based on false premises and bad blog infos.

Ask some of the skeptical gods if RSS data is false - that is John Christy and Roy Spencer. From what they say, nothing can beat the RSS data.

About the claim it is not warming, the figures from RSS published by R. Spencer himself are showing a warming trend and an above average anomaly globally. So even with all the will in the world to say it's not warming, one of the loudest skeptic is acknowledging it is. Look, it's not a warmist saying --- it's the highest ranked skeptic saying it is and he's taking care of the RSS data himself.

As i said in my other post, skeptic (and the D club) should aggree between themselves because the RSS data is ok on one day, and not ok on the other day. It reminds me a recent article from the D Club, when the guy admitted he had not check the RSS data for interesting finding - of course showing a cool day. So for that guy on that day, the data was reliable RSS Data taking a dive. Another good example of the disinformation as spring/automn seasons are usually colder than summer/winter seasons, but that's another subject.

Please make up your mind, the data is good every day or bad every day, not only when it suits the needs. Actually there's a good aggreement between skeptical and climate scientist that the data is ok.

This post has been edited by Regg: Jan 26 2011, 05:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st December 2014 - 09:04 PM