Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Ignore my last post I'm having computer probs. Regarding Kls last post in the other thread. "Update the Peterman glacier has grown  3k so much for doomed glaciers".

 

http://www.himalayanconsensus.org/glacialwatch

 

Or

 

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures

 

There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe undermining the ability to provide precise early warning for countries and populations at risk. If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century.

 

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

 

A rather silly statement to make on the basis of one glacier,

Edited October 14, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

It's not only that knocks but it highlights the accelerated rate at which Peterman is now moving downstream. It appears as though the poster knows little about the subject?

 

With the upsurge in melt across the ice sheet the amount of waters reaching the base of the sheet has also increased and so the outflow from the major 'drain glaciers' steps up. The last major calve from Peterman may have been instigated not from the fjord in front ( and tidal forcings) but from a melt water pulse from below that both lifted and dragged forward the section of the Glacier most vulnerable.

[4wd]

It's not only that knocks but it highlights the accelerated rate at which Peterman is now moving downstream. It appears as though the poster knows little about the subject?

 

I think you're assuming too much here, glacier speeds are influenced by a range of factors and probably how much ice is pushing from above is the main one.Also the supposition that the glacier is now lubricated below by increased melting is tenuous at best

[Gray-Wolf]

 "Processes such as enhanced basal lubrication due to increased surface runoff are likely

controlling the observed seasonal variation in velocity of Petermann Glacier"

 

http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~fpattyn/papers/Nick2012_JGLAC.pdf

 

[PeteG]

I think you're assuming too much here, glacier speeds are influenced by a range of factors and probably how much ice is pushing from above is the main one.I suspect that this could be the main factor, but that the huge calvings from the Peterman Glacier in recent years have released the braking effect of that lost ice mass thus accelerating the glacier.The result will be a loss of ice mass of the icecap itself to add to the loss through summer melt.

[Gray-Wolf]

The 3 other main drain glaciers are seeing overall acceleration and especially so after major calving events but not so Petermann which shows annual speed up's over the melt season and slow downs over the winter.

 

The others may well be responding to added weight of the ice as the melt-water appears to be sinking into the snow layers and increasing their bulk.

 

on that point the 'dry snow line' at the summit of Greenland's ice dome is rising and by around 2025 ( at current rates of advancement) will rise above the summit meaning the Arctic will have no 'dry snow' regions that survive all year round. It will also mean that the 2012 melt event will become a much more frequent event at the summit ( rather than 150yrs for the previous one and 400 yrs for the one before the 1889 one).

 

If a proportion of the summer melt is being trapped in the snow layers then this also increases the likelihood of catastrophic down-slope movement of sections of the sheet as the added weight is overcome by gravitational forces. Such events would no doubt accelerate ice loss by dropping sections below the current 'melting zone'.

 

EDIT: The other thing we also need mention is the thinning of the ice seaward of the grounding line. with Petermann the ice thins , due to basal melt from the warm salty Atlantic waters below, from 600m to around 200m. this means as the grounding line advances inland ( as they all are!) the floating glacier tongue places less ice against the sides of the Fjord and so reduces friction in that way.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Southern Alps' ice levels show sharp decrease

 

Ice levels in the Southern Alps dropped by almost 15 per cent in the past four years, new research from climate scientist Jim Salinger shows.

 

Dr Salinger's new book Living in a Warmer World, launched last night, cites research showing the ice volume in the Southern Alps decreased from 44.08 cubic km in 2008/09, to 37.59 cubic km in 2011/12.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11138854

Edited October 14, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Listening to the personal reports from folk around the Alps this summer, esp. the crippling heat they got through July, I'd guess that this years losses will top the last highest year?

[4wd]

It's in New Zealand, as I wrote yesterday.

Some of the Alpine glaciers have increased this year.http://www.sonntagon...t/aktuell/3241/

[knocker]

I've posted this before so it's getting rather boring.

 

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figuresThere is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe undermining the ability to provide precise early warning for countries and populations at risk. If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century.

 

 

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

[Fergus Brown]

It's in New Zealand, as I wrote yesterday.

Some of the Alpine glaciers have increased this year.http://www.sonntagon...t/aktuell/3241/

 

Quick question ; if glaciers are growing in some (very, very few) places, and shrinking in some other (very, very many) places, over an extended period of time, what do you think the trend globally is going to be?

[VillagePlank]

Quick question ; if glaciers are growing in some (very, very few) places, and shrinking in some other (very, very many) places, over an extended period of time, what do you think the trend globally is going to be?

 

... and, is the trend relevant, and does the trend follow the temperature series ie a rapid increase in shrinking at the end of the 20th century?

[Gray-Wolf]

... and, is the trend relevant, and does the trend follow the temperature series ie a rapid increase in shrinking at the end of the 20th century?

 

I think you'd need to be looking at individual regions to see how their temps/sunshine was in high melt years than expect clarity from global averages alone?

 

If we look at last years global ranking you would not then expect to see the peak melting across Greenland but look at the temp/sunshine records for the region and you'd make better sense of the mass loss. I'd expect similar from the Alps this summer with global averages not indicating the scale of losses we will have seen there.

 

Anyway this is drifting away from my original question of what will become of the energy currently being used to take ice masses away from their 'balance point' once their job there is complete? If it is currently 'hidden' in facilitating a state change then where do we expect it to pop up once that job is done? 

[Gray-Wolf]

We have a thread over in Science looking at the artifacts we are gaining from the vanishing snow patches across the north. During the last 'warm phase' those patches were still present and took up some of the energy in their melting. The next 'warming phase' will not have that commodity available for us to 'lose' that energy in.

 

When we look at the albedo crash across Greenland what will occur there come the next 'warming phase'? The amount of energy now being 'milked' by the dirty ice, compared to the energy that was gained their over the last 'warming period', has changed.

 

And what of the Arctic ocean and it's sea ice? When we look at the calcs for ice mass through Fram during the years of the 80's we can see that , come the next warming phase', we will have nothing like that tonnage flowing into the northern Atlantic and 'melt' ( never mind the changes in ice cover over the arctic ocean and the alteration to the energy it can now absorb over summer).

 

even before the renewed warming can have impact the instant impacts of lower albedo and the loss of snow/ice must show effect surely? And when the warming phase is established? then surely the advanced decay of the Arctic will push it ever closer to a new state that it's own 'energy inputs' will maintain even over the cooler global years?

 

To me it would appear easier to lose ice and remain ice free than it is to gain ice and maintain it year round? As we see with the Arctic basin today we have had a good year for maintaining ice but will that stave off another 07' when it comes around or would we need many more years of recovery and ice ageing to be at such a point once again?

 

With what we measure happening to our planet it is a far safer bet to say warming will continue than it is to say we will now cool consistently for the next 30 yrs

 

When you look at the recent global temps, from average or cool years, you still see it challenging the global heat that it took a super Nino to drive only 15yrs ago. So what are we best to look to? a never ending period of natural cool drivers keeping global temps at present levels of slow rises or do we think it likely that we will again find ourselves with nature adding into our current warming?

[Methuselah]

It's in New Zealand, as I wrote yesterday.

Some of the Alpine glaciers have increased this year.http://www.sonntagon...t/aktuell/3241/

Hardly surprising, when you think about it. Whoever put forward the 'strawman' that all of the world's alpine glaciers would recede at exactly the same rate?

[Gray-Wolf]

Some folk are funny when it comes to snow. Snow can only mean one thing...cooling. I remember my Nan always wittering about it being 'too cold to snow'.....ah well.

 

So , do environmental lapse rates alter with warming or does it still get colder the higher you go? Does warmer air hold more water vapour than cooler air. When a glacier 'grows' is this a measure of the snout extending or a mass gain by the ice body?

 

Does a 'mass gain ' for a glacier always indicate a cooling planet?

[knocker]

Irreversible now.

 

http://www.frontline.in/science-and-technology/irreversible-now/article5228873.ece

[knocker]

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Edited October 19, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Given the current situation it;s worth looking back a few months.

 

Epic Heat, Wildfires Are Scorching Australian Landscape

 

An exceptional heat wave and associated spate of wildfires have scorched the Australian landscape during the past two weeks, with Monday ranking as Australia’s hottest day on record. According to the Associated Press and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), the national average temperature on Monday was a sizzling 104.6°F. That eclipsed the previous mark of 104.3°F set in 1972.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/epic-heat-and-wildfires-torch-australia-15444

Edited October 20, 2013 by knocker

[Polar Maritime]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCsmvxkwzjw

[Methuselah]

Hardly surprising, when you think about it. Whoever put forward the 'strawman' that all of the world's alpine glaciers would recede at exactly the same rate?

Which does relate to what Ian posted into the sceptics' thread, earlier: many of the so-called 'sceptics' most eye-catching claims are based entirely on lies...

 

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-33#entry2810099

Edited October 20, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[Gray-Wolf]

I cannot agree with stews view on the other thread. There are 'factual inaccuracies' throughout the climate misleaders outpourings and ,where the facts cannot be questioned, a readiness to retreat behind the " prove it" shield.

 

I think the funded misleaders have hit upon the fact that 'to stall' is far more achievable than 'to overthrow' and achieves the same end result of global inaction on facing climate shift . To 'stall' any attempts to offset the worst of the predicted changes all you need do is ask for 'proof' of the predicted changes. You make out that thinking about what will follow current, measured, changes is wrong and cannot be lent credence as only 'proof' will do......

 

Future generations will see full well what this move for inaction cost the planet and I hope that those who fed the movement will be recognised and their part in things highlighted. The individuals concerned will not care ( or they would have cared) but their offspring might like to know what input their ancestors made to this great debacle.

[Methuselah]

You're right, Ian: the 'stall' is being presented as though it overrides all what's known about climate...

 

IMO, harping-on about what is unknown is just a waste of everybody's time...Better to obtain the knowledge than to hope/assume that our received opinions might one day be substantiated...Why is it that the very same people, who are quick to criticize the lack of knowledge, are also the very first to complain about paying for the necessary research?

 

Do they actually want to find out the truth??

[Devonian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch.....

 

I think that's a brilliant video, my only concern is the use of the word 'lies' which gives people an excuse to rail at it. I don't think there are liars in these conflicts, I think people really don't get it, or perhaps more likely, don't want to get it.

 

But, why, how!, anyone can call the vid 'propaganda' beats me. I can't see (bar the word I mentioned) any flaw in it's evidence or logic or reasoning. Of course that is why all sceptics are left with in such cases is verbal distractions - they have nothing else.

 

Sceptics, please provide a reasoned critique of the vid not invective.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Devonian

[Polar Maritime]

Exactly Dev, I agree.. I do think some people though (only a few), are so stubborn to except science, that all they have left is conspiracy's,  or twist and attack. 

Edited October 20, 2013 by Polar Maritime