back to article Greenland glacier QUADRUPLES speed, swells seas

The river of ice that's widely thought to have calved the iceberg that sank the Titanic has sped up to such a rate that it may now be the fastest flowing glacier on the globe. "We are now seeing summer speeds more than four times what they were in the 1990s on a glacier which at that time was believed to be one of the fastest, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

ReduceGHGs

It's one of many indicators. We are warming the earth and the consequences are not good. Read what NASA, NAS, AAAS, AIP, MET, AGU, and others say. There's no credible doubt.

Please join the efforts to reduce global emissions. Apathy only advocates more of the same dangerous behaviors.

www.ExhaustingHabitability.com

15
25
Bronze badge

Re: ReduceGHGs

As seen in a previous posting, some will ignore all data, especially data that is verifiable.

You know, thinks like Archimedes' principle?

Instead they'll claim that the sea swells with heat or some other bullshit.

Oh well, we'll continue as usual, I'll end up with beach front property and be laughing when London and Wall Street go under the waves, much to the great consternation of the wealthy business masters of the masses.

12
8

Re: ReduceGHGs

Have you disconnected from the grid? No, you're posting on the net. Do you drive a car, heat your house, grow your own food, wear clothes only from natural fibers, given up flying, auto, bus, and train travel? I doubt it. You don't want to change your own "dangerous behavior." All you want is to raise money to pay your salary at your non-profit.

You cannot prove global warming by regional warming, especially when the temp over the rest of the world is sufficiently cooler than the average over the last ten years as to negate all the regional warming in the Arctic. Global temps have not risen in the last 14 to 17 years, depending on the data source you use. The world has wised up to your fraudulant scare tactics.

Go away.

33
26
Anonymous Coward

Re: ReduceGHGs

In other words: 1st Para: Because you think he may be part of the problem, he can't comment.

2nd Para: The problem doesn't exist, all those nasa guys by implication aren't as smart as you.

I despair at the level of debate taught in schools these days.

26
8
Silver badge
WTF?

Go away yourself

If you can't be bothered to look at possibilities other than your blinkered biased opinion. Try searching Google "world temperature past ten years", number 2 http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/07/why-global-temperatures-held-s.html

Hardly an extreme view tome and they state that models show a halt in temp rises due to el nino and Chinese polution among other factors. The final paragraph is below, that at least is a reasoned responce unlike yours.

"So there are two key messages we can take from the research. The first is that the brief halt in global warming doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with climate science: known factors can account for it. And the second is that the reprieve may be only temporary. "

11
11
Anonymous Coward

Re: Go away yourself @ Big_Ted

"So there are two key messages we can take from the research. The first is that the brief halt in global warming doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with climate science: known factors can account for it. And the second is that the reprieve may be only temporary. "

Unfortunately even with those 2 provisos the various MMGW AGW CC groups feel that spending Billions on what they cannot explain and don't understand is the best way forward. This means that generally people may feel that they are just funding these scientists lifestyles and having got onto the merry-go-round of funding, are these scientists likely to say they were wrong? Also when most of the evidence comes from groups that include Climate Change in their names and remits, we know they are going to find that there's lots of it around and more needs to be done - Just look at ASH and smoking - If you work for an organization whose existence is dependent on a threat - you WILL find that threat.

Have I got the, or even an, answer - No.

6
6
Silver badge

Re: ReduceGHGs

"Please join the efforts to reduce global emissions."

I'm all for reducing global emissions. By switching to nuclear power as much as possible.

Unfortunately, lobbying businesses like Greenpeace and Co are fighting tooth and nail to retain our dependence on burning fossil fuels...

22
1

This post has been deleted by its author

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: ReduceGHGs

You forgot the NSA. Will that lot be flooded or not?

Oops, there goes all the data about the people we've gathered.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: ReduceGHGs

"Instead they'll claim that the sea swells with heat or some other bullshit."

it does, a little - but where do you think the extra heat comes from?

1
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: ReduceGHGs

Wzrd1: "...they'll claim that the sea swells with heat..."

El Reg: "...melting land-based ice adds to sea-level rise as it dumps its chilly self into the ocean."

Hmmm...

Ocean heat expansion problem solved. The world's oceans 'on the rocks'.

0
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: ReduceGHGs

@Vlad, right! You'd think Greenpeace et al would love nuclear, especially breeder reactors. They are, by any reasonable definition of the term, renewable.

http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf

"Since energy sources derived from the sun are called “renewable,” that adjective apparently means that they will be available in undiminished quantity at present costs for as long as the current relationship between the sun and Earth persists, about 5 billion years. It is the purpose of this note to show that breeder reactors using nuclear fission fulfil this definition of a renewable energy source, and in fact can supply all the world’s energy needs at present costs for that time period."

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: ReduceGHGs

"It's one of many indicators... we are warming"

Global temperature over the past 16 years indicates we are not warming.

But I would expect a poster called "ReduceGHGs" to be an activist, and ignore that. And you have.

3
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: ReduceGHGs

"Global temps have not risen in the last 14 to 17 years, depending on the data source you use"

Only if you pick very selective data, and ignore ocean temperatures. "More than 90 percent of the excess heat being caused by human activities is being absorbed by the ocean," the WMO said.

Over the long term the warming trend is very clear - and the current slow down in surface warming is within the level of variations seen in previous records...

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Go away yourself @ Big_Ted

"what they cannot explain and don't understand"

We DO know and can explain the primary reason why the world is warming, and that hasn't been in any serious doubt for at least a decade. It's due to emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 from our activities.

0
3
Bronze badge

Or

They might conclude you have been lead astray by incompetnts.

To start with: How can they tell levels have risen 1 mm?

Next: How do they know the ice on Greenland isn't sitting on water that is already connected to the sea in a manner that would have meant the ice was indirectly already floating?

And finally, all talk of global warming applies to regions of the seas in the Doldrums; a region encompassed by stable pressures of around 1016 mb.

Once it gets converted to atmospheric heat the dynamic changes from warming according to gas pressure laws into cyclones and anticyclones. Which at higher latitudes take the heat up into the upper atmosphere all the damned time.

Very little of that comes back down, so that what you get is an overall diminishing return of global heating.

If you can't see that, you shouldn't be involved in any arguments about glowbollocks.

You should be hyperventilating into a brown paper bag and then getting suitable medication for your stupidity.

Tip: Ask your doctor for some cyanosis. He will realise what your problem is immediately.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Go away yourself @ Big_Ted

We DO know and can explain the primary reason why the world is warming, and that hasn't been in any serious doubt for at least a decade. It's due to emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 from our activities.

Could you please pass this information on to the IPCC or the Planet as they have no idea and their models don't show why there has been a 15 year+ hiatus in warming, unless they twist and turn the models so far out of kilter that all they are is a representation of now.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Or

"How can they tell levels have risen 1 mm?"

Well, I guess they first took the estimated volume of water melted off the glacier (call it V), then they took the estimated surface area of the Earth's connected oceans (S) - you can google it up. Finally they calculated what would be the height of a cylinder of volume V and base area S by dividing V by S. No? :-)

0
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

I sea swelling

Who keeps posting this kneepad-style AGW bilge? Feel the propaganda:

"This retreat is a cause for some concern, seeing as how unlike sea-borne ice, melting land-based ice adds to sea-level rise as it dumps its chilly self into the ocean."

WRONG. As a glacier tongue enters the sea it raises sea level just the same as if it had melted on land and had run down as liquid water. Fail.

"We know that from 2000 to 2010 this glacier alone increased sea level by about 1mm," says Joughin. "With the additional speed it likely will contribute a bit more than this over the next decade."

Oh, we 'know' this, do we? Got proof?

"A millimeter here, a millimeter there, all coupled with the overall expansion of the mass of a warmer ocean, and pretty soon you're talking about beachfront property in Denver, Colorado.

Well, no, of course – but you get the implications."

Oh, I get it alright. Be afraid, be VERY afraid! Pay no attention to your lying eyes, that's just weather! This glacier over here is what matters, and it's going BERSERK! Aaaaagh!

13
25
Anonymous Coward

Re: I sea swelling

@ Big John

To quote that insightful and well-informed rodent, Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

Or, to quote another intellect, Mr. T, "I pity the fool."

And you, sir, are the fool to be pitied. The world is warming. Warming has consequences. As does your misunderstanding of the author's reference to sea-borne v. land-borne ice.

I pity the fool.

Sigh.

18
15

Re: I sea swelling

Whilst I cannot disagree with the fact that the earth is warming I am completely unsure that it is us who are causing it.

So, you might say "cause and effect". We have increased our output of CO2, and other harmful gasses into the atmosphere. Is Earth really that delicate? Did/can the planet survive?

"You say did?" I hear you ask. Well our planet was much more volatile in the past, probably due to increased volcanic activity, the sun having more fuel to burn perhaps and other stimuli which we probably dont even understand.

I once heard that cows produce a damn lot of methane and CO2 which is also harmful the environment. So much so that our large scale farming of these creatures causes as much CO2 as we do directly (correct me if im wrong). The greatest 2 contributors are the ocean and volcanoes. These 2 account for some massive percentage so again, I'm led to believe, are we right?

The beauty of science is that all science is fact until its been disproven by something else. I'm not saying we are wrong, but we could be, and perhaps we need a little more faith in the old girl that she will see us right. I mean she survived the dinosaurs right? Oh wait.... :S

But in all seriousness, I believe in the 70s climatologists were terrified the planet was cooling and encouraged the burning of fuels to generate CO2, think it had an effect?

Mankind has 3 things it needs to do:

1. Nuclear Fusion

2. Easy, accessible space travel for all

3. Flying cars (like Back to the Future, none of this propeller/winged nonsense)

Then there will be no CO2 to worry about.

</rant>

11
9

Did/can the planet survive?

Of course the planet will survive!

The big question here are the consequencies for life on the planet, humans included.

One thing we know for sure: plenty of insects will make it...

12
0
Gold badge
Meh

Re: I sea swelling

" The world is warming."

Well according to the data over the last 15 years the correct response to your unequivocal statement is no.

And rather more to the point no climate models predict this happening either.

10
9
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: I sea swelling

See my reply above....

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/07/why-global-temperatures-held-s.html

So the models do predict this if we add data to them.....

Your move......

1
8
Bronze badge

Re: I sea swelling

ahem, there is more energy in the system.

Forget about air temperature, the most important thing is the temperature of oceans.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Your move

This is not a game of chess.

This is science in the making.

You can quote whatever URL you want, when it comes to science I don't give a damn about the opinion of someone who is not a scientist.

What I want is a scientific study giving unequivocal proof, approved by every other scientific body, with no caveats, no shady issues and no omissions.

When I see that report, when scientists have finally understood how climate works and can reliably predict its evolution, then I will know that we know what is happening and why.

And that ain't happening tomorrow, so let the scientists work and stop being oh-so-sure you know what's going on because you don't and nobody does.

Climate science is based on thermodynamics, and anybody who has studied thermodynamics knows that it is by far the most difficult are of science. Climate studies have only started, we have weather data that is barely 200 years old and reliable data that is less old than that (when it's not being mucked about with to fit someone's agenda).

We do NOT have sufficient knowledge of our planet, or of the science, to claim that the planet is warming, or that Humanity is a cause.

Deal with it.

14
15
Anonymous Coward

Re: Your move

More anti-science dressed up as someone who thinks of themself as a rational science based person.

Just because science doesn't know everything, doesn't mean that it doesn't know anything. Your demand for science to know everything before you will accept it is literally impossible to fulfil.

15
4
Bronze badge

Re: I sea swelling

@Big_Ted, All that article does is try to keep the scam going. A single statistical model MIGHT show that there is a pause that MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT, continue - that is not science that is religion.

There is NOT ONE of the models that have been produced by the climate science religion that actually fit measured temperatures - even those that they have fiddled with to try and get the past to fit a bit better still do not predict correctly the future.

5
8
Bronze badge

Re: I sea swelling

Ah! The missing heat going into the deep ocean without warming any upper ocean on the way down. Magic.

1
5
Silver badge

Re: I sea swelling

what do we think is going to happen

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I sea swelling

So change the models to fit reality and the models fit reality? doesn't ocaams razor come in somewhere?

1
2

Re: Your move

"More anti-science dressed up as someone who thinks of themself as a rational science based person."

Someone who think that human civilisation is under threat from a 2C rise in *average* temperatures ... is being rational?

I don't think so.

Someone who thinks that a glacier melting *during an interglacial period* is an unusual data point ... is being rational?

I don't think so.

Someone who takes the output of models which don't reflect aerosols or clouds, and treats that output as the empirical data of a scientific experiment ... is clearly rational?

Thought not.

Rationality in climate debates would be a welcome development. If you are you in favour of more, I suggest you start with your own side, and clean up your own house.

7
8
Anonymous Coward

Re: I sea swelling

"Who keeps posting this kneepad-style AGW bilge? Feel the propaganda"

Rik Myslewski, who he thinks there are too many humans and we have sinned against Mother Nature.

3
4

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
FAIL

Re: I sea swelling

@ Ivan 4

Its really sad when someone posts the sort of thing you just did, you claim its a scam etc and refuse to see any other possibility, that is as bad as what you accuse the majority of the worlds scientists of, they beleif in global warming but have different opinions of cause and effect. You just refuse to accept it, oh and please if no model can show climate change how do you know for sure that the climate isn't changeing ?

2
2
Silver badge

Re: Your move

@AC Agree totally.

We know enough to say that pouring emissions (of any type) into the atmosphere (probably anywhere) is not a good idea. No problem there. We also have the issue of trying to conserve a finite resource we still need. There are lots of good reasons to try and not use carbon based fuels for heating etc.

However, here's the rub. Making changes and reducing emissions is fine to a point, but we're faced with a problem. Firstly, there are plenty of people around who want drastic emissions regardless of what others do and almost regardless of cost. This is silly. We need to reduce emissions where practical, but not to the point of thousands of pensioners dying of cold over winter. Some of this is political and taxation as well to maybe give them more money. However, we can't possibly do everything and we also need to get worldwide support. Without including big (relatively) emitters, anything the UK does is irrelevant, but might cause us huge economic issues.

We also have a major problem with people looking too short term. We've rushed at technologies because we have a decent understanding of them now, whereas if we invested in research for a few years, we might get a much better solution in the long run. Sometimes, doing nothing for a few years and then investing will yield a much better return that building immediately. A good example of this is wind turbines. We basically had the technology worked out very early on, but they're actually a really bad way of generating electricity for a whole host of reasons. But, we've invested massively in them and ignored what probably are much better solutions. We've created economic environments where you're better off investing in wind farms than trying to develop a much better solution. e.g. tidal and wave.

Finally, we have to realise this is a tradeoff situation. The Severn barrage may or may not be a good idea. However, if it makes sense in every other way, we might just have to put up with the environmental changes it will make upstream and the damage to habitats. We're in a situation where every solution has at least one downside, yet all the eco warriors insist you do something, but then object to just about every possibly solution. Well, we're just going to have to choose the lesser of two evils unless we want to go back to the caves and subsistence farming, which isn't going to happen. Sometimes there is no perfect answer and a lot of the eco people need to realise this. Often, it's simply picking the option that causes least damage rather than no damage at all.

After all, the very existence of every single person affects the environment in some, very tiny way.

8
0
P_0

Re: I sea swelling

Its really sad when someone posts the sort of thing you just did, you claim its a scam etc and refuse to see any other possibility, that is as bad as what you accuse the majority of the worlds scientists of, they beleif in global warming but have different opinions of cause and effect.

The majority of the world's scientists? Let's be clear, we are talking about climate scientists here. And saying "most" indicates that you know very well that some scientists doubt the full supposed threat of AGW.

You just refuse to accept it, oh and please if no model can show climate change how do you know for sure that the climate isn't changeing ?

That's not the issue. The issue is whether we have enough (or any) evidence to supposet that humans are causing massive climate change. Three years ago, you'd be lucky to get an AGW believer to admit that our supposed "catastrophic climate change" has paused. Now the obvious fact is inescapable, there is not one iota of a thought int he general body of AGW believers that their model and their theory could be wrong. Even though the observed data has contradicted their theory. We get excuse after excuse for why the models failed. We still get Al Gore bleating incessently about "deniers" and "the facts are in". Well no, the facts are not in. The observed data has destroyed your theory.

6
3
Bronze badge

Re: I sea swelling

"Well according to the data over the last 15 years the correct response to your unequivocal statement is no."

No, it's "not much, maybe nothing".

1998-2013: trend 0.042 ±0.140 °C/decade (2σ) (hadcrut4)

"And rather more to the point no climate models predict this happening either."

Well, no. No climate model predicted this slowdown, because climate models can't predict weather (ENSO). They have predicted that such slowdowns can happen. When run with the observed ENSO forced they have correctly predicted current conditions.

3
1
Bronze badge

Re: Your move

"What I want is a scientific study giving unequivocal proof, approved by every other scientific body, with no caveats, no shady issues and no omissions."

Aint going to happen. And if it did it wouldn't be science.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: I sea swelling

"As does your misunderstanding of the author's reference to sea-borne v. land-borne ice."

Hmmm, let us revisit the offending quote:

"This retreat is a cause for some concern, seeing as how unlike sea-borne ice, melting land-based ice adds to sea-level rise as it dumps its chilly self into the ocean."

In the context of the article, that 'sea-borne ice' got in the sea exactly how? Did it form there? Or did it break off a glacier that formed on land? Obviously the latter. So the fact that the ice is now floating (when it had not been previously) indicates that when it entered the sea it perforce had to drive up the sea level.

Have I clarified it enough?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Your move

"We do NOT have sufficient knowledge of our planet, or of the science, to claim that the planet is warming, or that Humanity is a cause."

Whenever I hear about sea level rises, it does make me wonder what happened to Doggerland, the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia, the land that is now various groups of islands in the region of Malaysia etc.

It seems to me that sea level has been rising or falling pretty much since the oceans first existed, mainly due to ice ages either approaching or receding at any one moment in time.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing. Whether "we" have anything to do with it, or at least anything significant is still debatable. It may be that we do have some effect and a change in our civilisation might mitigate some change in climate, but we can't stop climate change to the extent that it;s changing anyway. We are still coming out of an ice age so the planet is still warming and sea levels are still rising.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: I sea swelling

Mankind has 3 things it needs to do:

1. Nuclear Fusion

Done! Oh, did you mean controlled fusion for producing electricity? Why? A sensible fission program using known or plausibly-commercial technologies like breeder reactors, CANDU, pebble-bed, and/or traveling-wave is far more achievable and solves the same problem.

2. Easy, accessible space travel for all

Sigh. Spend an absurdly enormous energy and materials budget to leave a hugely beneficial environment, at tremendous risk. If we can ever afford this, it's a pure luxury, good only for ideological projects like "preserving the human species". (Space travel for scientific research, entertainment, etc has other benefits, but "space travel for all" does not. It's a polished turd.)

3. Flying cars (like Back to the Future, none of this propeller/winged nonsense)

We already have plenty of ways for idiots to harm themselves and others. I can't see this one making a significant difference.

2
2
Silver badge

Re: Your move

Pascal Monet: a scientific study giving unequivocal proof

You want an oxymoron? (Why, when the stock of regular morons is so plentiful on all sides of this debate?)

Modern scientific epistemology does not admit to "unequivocal proof". You're thinking of faith.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: I sea swelling

> WRONG. As a glacier tongue enters the sea it raises sea level just the

> same as if it had melted on land and had run down as liquid water. Fail.

While what you say is true, it is irrelevant because it FAILs to connect to the actual claim.

The original was referring to 'sea-borne ice'. Most of the Arctic become iced over each winter, much of this then melts during summer. This makes no difference to the sea level because it is 'sea-borne ice'. ie it is formed at the sea surface and is just floating on the surface.

Ice from glaciers that enters the sea, whether it melted before or after moving from land to sea, will raise the sea level. In this particular case the ice front is shifting away from the sea which means that all the water that was ice between the sea and the current ice front (ie was land-borne) has entered the sea and has caused it to rise. As the ice-front moves further away then that makes even more sea-level rise.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: I sea swelling

> cows produce a damn lot of methane and CO2

That is true. But _all_ the carbon in that which they produce, and all the carbon in their meat (and other stuff) comes from one source: the grass (and corn where applicable). And the grass gets all its carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere.

Cattle and sheep and stuff are carbon neutral.

Where the problem comes from is that carbon is being extracted from underground (in the form of coal and oil) and being converted to CO2 _without_ any corresponding balance that returns the carbon to underground to complete the cycle.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: I sea swelling

> that 'sea-borne ice' got in the sea exactly how? Did it form there? Or did it break off a glacier that formed on land? Obviously the latter.

You are under-educated. 'sea-borne ice' is one of _two_ things: icebergs which did break off a land-borne glacier _OR_ ice that formed on the sea.

The whole of the Arctic ice cap is ice that formed at the surface of the sea and is and has always been 'sea-borne'. The Antarctic ice shelf (but not the ice cap) is also formed by freezing at the surface.

0
1
Bronze badge

What we need is a bigger thermometer

Or how the hell are you going to take the temperature of an ocean?

All this glowballs has come about because we now have the ability to measure the temperature of >>the surface<< of the oceans. But we use satellites to do it with and have no possible way of ensuring they are calibrated correctly.

If we did know their readings are correct, we still couldn't compare them to anything previous to satellite data.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: I sea swelling

"While what you say is true, it is irrelevant because it FAILs to connect to the actual claim."

The actual claim included this little nugget:

"This retreat is a cause for some concern..."

The author was specifically referring to the retreat of the glacier foot from the sea and onto the land. He says this fact is a problem, in the very next words:

"..seeing as how unlike sea-borne ice, melting land-based ice adds to sea-level rise as it dumps its chilly self into the ocean."

The author is clearly implying that this 'sea-borne ice' got there by calving off a land based glacier, not by forming as sea ice. Sea ice was never mentioned. Therefore the actual claim compares floating glacial ice to melted glacial ice. Therefore your criticism is unwarranted. You really should take a course in basic logic.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: I sea swelling

"'sea-borne ice' is one of _two_ things: icebergs which did break off a land-borne glacier _OR_ ice that formed on the sea."

Agreed. However, sea ice is not and never was the issue in the original article, please re-read it if you doubt me. True, sea-borne ice does not raise sea level as it melts, but if it got in the sea by running off the land and into the water, it definitely DID raise sea level at that time. Or perhaps being under-educated I have somehow got this wrong?

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums