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

[Gray-Wolf]

Once we see the first 'Seasonal' year in the Arctic Ocean all attention will then switch to the state of Greenland I.M.H.O. The impact of the ice no longer affecting the north shore will surely accelerate melt there also?

 

When you look at the vid. you can see the edges are now badly impacted by the albedo flip. these areas also carry the eroded detritus from the land below. How long before we see slopes destabilise due to a combination of undercutting and saturation of underlying snow layers by melt water?

 

Also remember that past warmings have seen the West Antarctic ice sheet react faster to the warming and so our 'slowing' of that process, by the ozone issues, will eventually work out of the system leaving the second ice sheet showing a similar evolution to Greenland but with no internal basin full of ice just ice draped over mountains. The loss of ice from rocky slopes will see a much faster albedo crash than we see in Greenland and lead to faster sea level impacts.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Helheim glacier calving timelapse

 

 

[knocker]

New study closes Greenland ice sheet mass budget & presents a 'unified theory' re: meltwater / ice flow interaction

 

3 part study reconstructs Greenland ice sheet mass budget since 1840 and presents a theory connecting surface meltwater with ice deformational flow

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=874

[knocker]

Northern hemisphere losing last dry snow region, says CU study

Last July, something unprecedented in the 34-year satellite record happened: 98 percent of the Greenland Ice Sheet’s surface melted, compared to roughly 50 percent during an average summer. Snow that usually stays frozen and dry turned wet with melt water. Research led by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences now shows last summer’s extreme melt could soon be the new normal.

 

“Greenland is warming rapidly, and such ice-sheet-wide, surface-melt events will occur more frequently over the next couple of decades,†said Dan McGrath, a University of Colorado Boulder doctoral student who works at CIRES. McGrath is lead author of a paper published online May 20 in Geophysical Research Letters and which reports a significant warming trend on the Greenland Ice Sheet.

 

McGrath and his coauthors calculate that by 2025 ice-sheet-wide melt events will have a 50 percent chance of occurring each year. That would signal the loss of the last major dry-snow zone -- regions where the snow stays almost perpetually frozen -- in the Northern Hemisphere, McGrath said.

 

 

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/05/20/northern-hemisphere-losing-last-dry-snow-region-says-cu-study

Edited May 21, 2013 by knocker

[john pike]

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

[ANYWEATHER]

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Thanks again John...

[Gray-Wolf]

Looks like melt season has begun?

[knocker]

Some better news in Greenland, for a time anyway.

 

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=950

 

Figure 1. Greenland reflectivity below 500 m elevation, including land areas. Notice the extreme low anomaly for 2013 that is by now erased.

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2013 by knocker

[songster]

Edit: Ignore, link wasn't working for me - is now.

Edited May 27, 2013 by songster

[Gray-Wolf]

I have to wonder about the impacts on N.Hemisphere circulation that summer ice loss installs? The evidence for it's impacts ,year round, have been compelling so the added impacts of last years 'drop' must have impact above and beyond what we had seen recently?

 

I know that the year so far in the UK has been markedly different to the 'stuck' weather that brought so much cloud/rain/flooding over past spring/summers with High pressure seeming to be the dominant feature? Greenland's 'anomalous' Southern High Pressure also seems unwilling to impose itself as it had over past summers?

 

With the poor state of the ice pack in the Arctic Basin I wonder how long it will be before we see temp anoms ,driven by melt out, again impacting coastal Greenland.

 

Though things are looking better than they were, and ice loss in the Arctic appears slow, I'm waiting for the sucker punch that last years record ice losses have placed into the system and feel that June/July will be when the blow is delivered (but please let that mean a 3 month heatwave for us????)

[knocker]

Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet

 

Here you can follow the daily surface mass balance on the Greenland Ice Sheet based on snowfall and snow melt in one of DMI’s numerical weather forecast models. The model determines the amount of snowfall along with melting, refreezing of melt water and sublimation (snow that evaporates without melting first). The result of this is a change in snow depth from one day to the next and this change is shown below. All numbers are in water equivalent, that is, the amount of water the snow would correspond to if it was melted.

 

Left: Map of the mass balance today (in mm water equivalent per day). Right: The average mass balance for today’s calendar date over the period 1990-2011. Some black patches may occur in the left panel and they denote areas where the model has melted away all the surface snow. Although there is still ice underneath, these areas do not contribute further changes in snow mass, even if the weather is still warm.

 

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/en/print/index/gronland/indlandsisens_massebalance.htm

 

 

[knocker]

new icey videos at the @promiceGL youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnscfj5k_6bZdQxZUwLr2jA?feature=watch â€¦

[loafer]

No-one ever posts videos of non-calving glaciers, do they?

Mind you, they wouldn't be very exciting.

[jethro]

Similar concerns from many years ago.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Similar concerns from many years ago.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/

 

Though interesting, it's quite a disingenuous use of the book by Dr Spencer .

He seemed to forget about the authors preface

"this book cannot be called the second edition of Sea Water and Ice, nor can it be called a textbook, a scientific handbook or a monograph. It presents my personal opinions, which in a number of cases still require verification and refinement..."

 

Nobody that I'm aware of denies that there was rapid warming in the Arctic in the late 19th and early 20th century anyway,  Arctic amplification isn't a new phenomenon.

 

 

EDIT: Added "by" between the words "book" and "Dr"

Edited June 21, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[knocker]

Today's large smb plot shows intense melt continuing in West. Sunny warm weekend forecast

 

EDIT.

NEW Greenland and Arctic climate monitoring web site now live

http://polarportal.org/en/home/

Edited June 21, 2013 by knocker

[jethro]

Though interesting, it's quite a disingenuous use of the book Dr Spencer .

He seemed to forget about the authors preface

"this book cannot be called the second edition of Sea Water and Ice, nor can it be called a textbook, a scientific handbook or a monograph. It presents my personal opinions, which in a number of cases still require verification and refinement..."

 

Nobody that I'm aware of denies that there was rapid warming in the Arctic in the late 19th and early 20th century anyway,  Arctic amplification isn't a new phenomenon.

 

There's nothing disingenuous about an experienced Arctic explorer publishing his observations, neither is it disingenuous to explore the past when looking at the present or future. It is clear and obvious that in order to measure today, we must first explore the past. Today is not the first time that melting ice, glaciers disappearing, odd weather phenomena and warming temperatures have been experienced North of the Arctic Circle. 

 

I personally found it interesting, I'm hoping others on here may also find it interesting. It isn't a comment on AGW, it isn't offered as evidence against AGW, it is merely an interesting insight to the history of the area, via first hand experience. I see no problem with that.

[Methuselah]

The very first thing I learned, when studying climatology, was how ancient climates are reconstructed...But, nowhere, did I find anything relating to the sudden emission of huge amounts of greenhouse gases...It's hardly surprising, therefore, given that we are (paeleoclimatically speaking) in uncharted waters, that the whole subject is laden with hidden tripwires...

 

How many cliches did I get into that?

[BornFromTheVoid]

There's nothing disingenuous about an experienced Arctic explorer publishing his observations, neither is it disingenuous to explore the past when looking at the present or future. It is clear and obvious that in order to measure today, we must first explore the past. Today is not the first time that melting ice, glaciers disappearing, odd weather phenomena and warming temperatures have been experienced North of the Arctic Circle. 

 

I personally found it interesting, I'm hoping others on here may also find it interesting. It isn't a comment on AGW, it isn't offered as evidence against AGW, it is merely an interesting insight to the history of the area, via first hand experience. I see no problem with that.

 

I think I was quite clear in calling Roy Spencers use and interpretation of it disingenuous, not the book itself or its author.

The book itself was very interesting, I agree with that.

[jethro]

The very first thing I learned, when studying climatology, was how ancient climates are reconstructed...But, nowhere, did I find anything relating to the sudden emission of huge amounts of greenhouse gases...It's hardly surprising, therefore, given that we are (paeleoclimatically speaking) in uncharted waters, that the whole subject is laden with hidden tripwires...

 

How many cliches did I get into that?

 

That depends on whether or not you approach the subject out of curiosity, or whether your aim is to support one side or the other of this debate. I'm not in a position to prove anything regarding climate, as I'm not a scientist. I'm not even vaguely interested in trying to convince anyone what they should or shouldn't believe, make your own mind up. I haven't been in here for months, posting a link to something of interest, only for it to be called disingenuous, reminds me in an instant why I gave up in here - it's not worth the hassle. You have to jump through hoops in order to get any ordinary conversation and battle with endless defensive reactions,  just to post something which may interest folk. The barriers and tripwires put up by folk, instantly make me lose the will to live. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

That depends on whether or not you approach the subject out of curiosity, or whether your aim is to support one side or the other of this debate. I'm not in a position to prove anything regarding climate, as I'm not a scientist. I'm not even vaguely interested in trying to convince anyone what they should or shouldn't believe, make your own mind up. I haven't been in here for months, posting a link to something of interest, only for it to be called disingenuous, reminds me in an instant why I gave up in here - it's not worth the hassle. You have to jump through hoops in order to get any ordinary conversation and battle with endless defensive reactions,  just to post something which may interest folk. The barriers and tripwires put up by folk, instantly make me lose the will to live. 

 

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to continually misrepresent my posts, Jethro.

I made it quite clear, in both posts, that I found the book interesting, that I had no problem with your posts and that it was Dr. Roy Sepencer whom I found to be disingenuous. This is because he cherry picked and misrepresented parts of the old book in order to further his anti-AGW stance and ridicule those who are concerned about the current changes being witnessed in the Arctic.

If you disagree with me, that's completely fine, but then why not present your rationale for disagreeing in the rational, intelligent and adult manner for which I know you to be more than capable of? To get so defensive and act as though you're the poor, innocent victim of a bullying mentality, with imaginary plots to trip up and catch people out, borders on laughable.

[jethro]

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to continually misrepresent my posts, Jethro.

I made it quite clear, in both posts, that I found the book interesting, that I had no problem with your posts and that it was Dr. Roy Sepencer whom I found to be disingenuous. This is because he cherry picked and misrepresented parts of the old book in order to further his anti-AGW stance and ridicule those who are concerned about the current changes being witnessed in the Arctic.

If you disagree with me, that's completely fine, but then why not present your rationale for disagreeing in the rational, intelligent and adult manner for which I know you to be more than capable of? To get so defensive and act as though you're the poor, innocent victim of a bullying mentality, with imaginary plots to trip up and catch people out, borders on laughable.

 

I didn't mention bullying, I just expressed my thoughts that it's incredibly tedious trying to get round the endless criticism which happens in here. That's a thought shared by many, many posters on the forum who have either given up joining in, or can't be bothered to run the gauntlet of criticism if they do. As for imaginary plots, that's of your invention, not mine. 

 

I had hoped it may be possible to discuss some of the science without the instantaneous AGW pro/sceptic thing kicking in. As the title of this thread asks 'What do we know' I thought it entirely appropriate to post something on the known history. It hasn't provoked any interest or conversation on the actual topic, but it has reminded me why I think it fruitless to join in in this area. I think nearly 7 years of adamantly saying 'I care not a jot about sides in this debate, I'm firmly in the middle' is more than long enough for regular posters to drop the endless pro/anti rubbish when replying to my posts, and discuss the actual science within them. Agenda driven conversations don't interest me so I'll leave you all to it.

 

And before you throw your hands up in mock indignation, you absolutely know my thoughts on where information comes from - I don't care where it comes from, who it's from, so long as it's interesting. You want to argue with Spencer on his use of the book, argue with him. I was interested in the content, not the source.

Edited June 21, 2013 by jethro

[knocker]

Latest smb. Been some increase in the SE recently.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Jethro, you posted a link, I made 1 positive comment (about the book) and 1 negative comment (about Spencers misrepresentation of it, which anyone with an unbiased view could have seen). It's a discussion forum, comments are a part of discussion, thus people discuss and comment on things. If you can't handle that without endless paragraphs preaching from some moral high ground about a them vs us mentality and agenda driven discussion, then maybe it is best you stay away. Your aggressive posting and over reaction will only drive people away.

 

 

 

Springtime melt in Greenland: Late start, rapid spread

June 21, 2013

 

Surface melting of the snow and ice of the Greenland Ice Sheet had a slightly late start, but quickly spread over a significant area, extending over more than 20% of the ice sheet in early June and reaching above 2,000 meters (6,500 feet) elevation in some areas. Small melt lakes have begun to form on the ice sheet, as seen by the new USGS/NASA Landsat-8 satellite.

 

 

More here

 

[jethro]

Jethro, you posted a link, I made 1 positive comment (about the book) and 1 negative comment (about Spencers misrepresentation of it, which anyone with an unbiased view could have seen). It's a discussion forum, comments are a part of discussion, thus people discuss and comment on things. If you can't handle that without endless paragraphs preaching from some moral high ground about a them vs us mentality and agenda driven discussion, then maybe it is best you stay away. Your aggressive posting and over reaction will only drive people away.

 

 

 

More here

 

 

 

It's a sad fact of life that none of us see eye to eye with everyone we meet, nor everyone we converse with via the internet. It's not a big deal, or at least doesn't need to be. There's an easy solution if someone irritates you, use the ignore button, that's what it's there for. It's not compulsory to listen to, read, or reply to every post on a forum, be selective.

Edited June 25, 2013 by jethro