New photos show Greenland glaciers melting faster than now

[dogtowner]

no big deal back then

obviously more to all this than we understand. except that its obviously not CO2 to blame.

The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island's coasts.

After the expedition returned the photographs were used to make maps and charts of the area, then placed in archives in Denmark where they lay forgotten for decades. Then, in recent years, international researchers trying to find information on the history of the Greenland glaciers stumbled across them.

Taken together the pictures show clearly that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, according to Professor Jason Box, who works at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State uni.

There's much scientific interest in the Greenland ice sheet, as unlike most of the Arctic ice cap it sits on land: thus if it were to melt, serious sea level rises could occur (though the latest research says that this doesn't appear to be on the cards).

 

[Cruella]

Interesting. Seems these high priced think tanks don't get very much right.

I was recently reading about "Outcome Based Education". It was a new method of teaching to replace the old traditional method. Basically it was a form of brainwashing. It seems to me the students of that method learned their lessons well. They have a theory, then try to bend the facts to fit their theory's outcome.

Climate change is real. Always has been, always will be. Icebergs will come and go. During the days of Leif Erickson, Greenland was green. The people were able to farm. Archeologists have determined what crops were grown then, that could not survive in Greenland's temperatures today. Same with Northern Great Britain. Their weather used to support prolific grape orchards, which it would not today.

 

[dogtowner]

Interesting. Seems these high priced think tanks don't get very much right.

I was recently reading about "Outcome Based Education". It was a new method of teaching to replace the old traditional method. Basically it was a form of brainwashing. It seems to me the students of that method learned their lessons well. They have a theory, then try to bend the facts to fit their theory's outcome.

Climate change is real. Always has been, always will be. Icebergs will come and go. During the days of Leif Erickson, Greenland was green. The people were able to farm. Archeologists have determined what crops were grown then, that could not survive in Greenland's temperatures today. Same with Northern Great Britain. Their weather used to support prolific grape orchards, which it would not today.

yuppers. interesting parallel to outcome based ed, thx

 

[steveox]

Earth could be warming back to Mesozoic era.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/geology/hist_mesozoic.html

 

[bobgnote]

Here's what you are looking for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-T_extinction

The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying,[2] was an extinction event that occurred 252.28 Ma (million years) ago,[3] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods, as well as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[4] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[5] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[6][7] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[4] possibly up to 10 million years.[8] This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions."[9]

Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[5][10][11][12] There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was likely due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, coal/gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps,[13] and sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.[14]

It seems a carbonaceous meteorite struck the Earth, which likely caused a lot of the sustained volcanism.
Our outgassing of CO2 and CH4 exceeds that, preceding the P-T extinction. So all we need to ride Mass Extinction Event 6 in on a pale horse, to catch this nasty, #1 killer is a little nuclear accident or war.

We certainly have enough ignorance, to prevent re-greening or even gathering of climate change intel, which is necessary, to prevent hands and minds, from unifying, to respond, to imminent climate change disasters.

Excuuuuse me, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has led to warming, which has led to out-gassing, of CH4, which is a worse GHG, so global warming is runaway, leading to severe climate changes. Eh?

 

[palerider]

It seems a carbonaceous meteorite struck the Earth, which likely caused a lot of the sustained volcanism.

Explain how a meterorite might cause sustained volcanism.

Our outgassing of CO2 and CH4 exceeds that, preceding the P-T extinction. So all we need to ride Mass Extinction Event 6 in on a pale horse, to catch this nasty, #1 killer is a little nuclear accident or war.

Sustained volcanism would cause cooling because it would reduce incoming solar radiation.

Excuuuuse me, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has led to warming

Prove that. Lets see the hard evidence. Models, by the way are not evidence.

 

[Cruella]

About all this ice melt and the seas raising. How does that happen? If ice melts in a glass, it doesn't spill out, or does it?

 

[dogtowner]

About all this ice melt and the seas raising. How does that happen? If ice melts in a glass, it doesn't spill out, or does it?

is NYC underwater yet ? I'd n ot fret much.
if a glacier is located on the gound and melts its like adding an icecube to that glass.

 

[Cruella]

is NYC underwater yet ? I'd n ot fret much.
if a glacier is located on the gound and melts its like adding an icecube to that glass.

But is there that much land ice? Isn't most of it (like glaciers) already in the water displacing it by it's weight? What about the weight on land. Do they weigh the land down, then bouy up when the ice melts?

 

[palerider]

About all this ice melt and the seas raising. How does that happen? If ice melts in a glass, it doesn't spill out, or does it?

Floating ice melting won't cause any sea level rise and in fact, may cause some sea level lowering because the air in ice displaces water as well because the air makes the ice larger. So melting arctic sea ice won't cause any sea level rise. Melting land ice can cause sea level rise because that ice when melted becomes an addition to the ocean water. Climate science isn't talking so much about sea level rise anymore because there is enough peer reviewed material out there now to pretty much quash those claims. Sea level has been flat, or slightly decreasing for some time now and keep in mind that the amount of fresh water we are adding to the oceans due to irrigation should be causing some increase no matter how small. The fact that it isn't says that that water is being locked up in ice.

Climate science makes a big to do about melting arctic ice because they don't have to show rising sea levels associated with it. They don't make such a big noise about antarctic ice any more because sea levels are not cooperating...ditto for greenland although they have been waving their hands over some inconsequential surface melting which they have been called on.

The melting back of the glaciers some 2000 miles over the past 14,000 years as we exit an ice age has caused sea levels to raise nearly 600 feet. The melting has been going on for so long and raised sea level so much that no one should be waving their hands in panic over continued melting. The fact that sea level rise has nearly petered out and there is no real evidence of sea level rise due to melting glaciers shold be causing some anxiety however, over a possible cooling period like the little ice age coming on.

 

[palerider]

But is there that much land ice? Isn't most of it (like glaciers) already in the water displacing it by it's weight? What about the weight on land. Do they weigh the land down, then bouy up when the ice melts?

No, glaciers are land ice and so is greenland and antarctica which between the two hold most of the earth's fresh water. Lakes on land or ice on land really doesn't have much effect on sea water and if a glacier floats due to deep melting, the weight doesn't change, only the form.

Considering that the earth IS still in the process of coming out of an ice age, and will be for a very long time to come, it should come as no surprise to anyone that ice will continue to melt and sea levels will continue to rise in the future.

What is happening now with climate science is analogous to the old high priests who used knowledge that the rest of the population didn't have (predicting eclipses, predicting coming growing seasons, etc.) to scare them into giving the priests positions of power and influence even over the rulers and gave them power to demand sacrifice through the rulers.

Today climate science is using the fact that the earth is coming out of an ice age and the predictable warming, and its effects, that is part and parcel of coming out of an ice age to scare the percentage of the population who don't know that we are coming out of an ice age and the inevetable effects that result into giving them positions of power, even over the elected rulers and are demanding sacrifice from us and queing our elected rulers to enact the measures necessary to extract that sacrifice whether we want to make it or not.

 

[bobgnote]

But is there that much land ice? Isn't most of it (like glaciers) already in the water displacing it by it's weight? What about the weight on land. Do they weigh the land down, then bouy up when the ice melts?

http://www.scp.byu.edu/docs/pdf/scp_eos.doc2.pdf

Ice can be sea ice, shelf ice, glacial ice, sheet ice, and of course, these might all be polar ice. It melts.

The land ice is not inundated by water, like the sea ice, which may be like West Antarctic ice, extending all the way, to the sea floor. Warming currents are attacking the West Antarctic sea ice, so it loses 100 cubic kilometers, per year. The East Antarctic sheet is supposed to be growing, but it can start sliding, into the sea, when Antarctic shelf ice fails, which it has been doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

More recent research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice-mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters.[45]

The sea level has been rising, at different levels, all over the Earth, but it averages about 3-4 mm. The SLR is just starting to get out of control, so it is greater, in places, between Cape Hatteras and Boston, since the rampant melts in the Arctic and Greenland are the likely cause, of disruption, of trade currents.

SLR can go up 70 m, without any adjustments for heat or new shoreline, if all the Greenland and Antarctic perennial sheet ice melts. Perennial Arctic ice and permafrost has been hit very hard.

The local SLR on the East Coast has been called a 'hot spot,' this year:

http://www.livescience.com/21158-sea-level-rise-northeast-coast.html

As the world warms and seas rise, some spots are expected to take the brunt of the higher ocean levels, while others may not see such a deluge, new

research by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reveals.​

​

The

study ​

homed in on one "hotspot," where sea levels are rising more than three times faster than the global average: the 621-mile (1,000-kilometer) stretch along the eastern United States' Atlantic coast.

From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to north of Boston, Mass., tide-gauge records reveal sea levels have increased on average about 0.08 inches (2 millimeters) per year from 1950 to 2009. Globally, meanwhile, sea levels have increased about 0.02 inches (0.6 millimeter) per year during that window.

SLR will be a general problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/s...sing-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Global-sea-level-rise-could-hit-California-hard-3657131.php

palerider keeps writing, how we are coming out of an ice age, without regard to how we are at a 100,000-year thermal maximum, when CO2 is at least 280 ppm, and temperatures are relatively high, but not as high as they sometimes get, in the last 650,000 years, when CO2-temperature cycles were relatively consistent, see my graph, at the other thread. But humans pushed CO2 to an astounding acceleration of concentration, all the way, to 400 ppm and rising, rapidly. Of course, pr does not believe in the effect, of GHGs, but I suspect coal interest distortion may be affecting his judgment.

Temperatures and SLR will follow CO2 and GHG concentration increases, without a doubt. We can stop all human emissions, and without radical re-greening, of deserts and polluted areas, SLR will still likely be several feet, over a couple of centuries.

Here is what sea level has been doing:

We will see more water, in the gross climate system, from the sea ice melts, so storms will be more deadly. Floods will be more common. That water doesn't just disrupt trade currents.

Of course, all we have for past thermal maximums is proxy data. But we know we are at a thermal maximum, and the only ice age we just came out of was a mini-ice age. Most of the sea level rise happened, relative to the thermal maximum, and part of the phenomena, for a mini-ice age involves failure of a glacial moraine, in Canada, known as Lake Agassiz, which caused the Great Lakes and the Great Salt Lake, when it failed.

This cooled the planet, allowing a mini-ice age, which you can look up.

We will hit some new thermal high, with a lot of instrument data, to show us what is happening, since GHGs are off the hook. Without out-gassing this fast, the Earth has gotten hotter, see PETM and P-T extinctions. The sea level will get feet higher, as Greenland sheet ice fails. And this will fail, as Arctic sea ice fails, since the northern ice albedo (reflectivity) will fail, in northern summers, which will allow more heat, to accumulate, then.

We will stay hot, at least several hundred thousand years, and we will cool, only if new fauna clear the CO2.

Sea Level Rise will mostly happen, after we are dead, but surviving humans will have to move inland, to deal with increased volcanism, since the heavier tides will massage plates, faults, and magma chambers. Lunar tides already are observed, to precede increased seismic and volcanic events.

Meanwhile, all that water ends up in the climate system, somcwhere. A lot of the melt carries carbonic acid, toward reefs and oyster beds. The H2CO3 also kills eggs and little fish. It is a threat, to the oceanic food chain, made by increasing absorption, of CO2, into the oceans.

Since our existing forests are subject to drought, and lands are subjected, to increased erosion, from storms and winds, and bees are dying, warming from CO2 pollution does not neatly lead, to a jungle paradise or to a lot of fruit trees, like dt suggests, in one of his posts.

 

[bobgnote]

Explain how a meterorite might cause sustained volcanism.
Sustained volcanism would cause cooling because it would reduce incoming solar radiation.

Prove that. Lets see the hard evidence. Models, by the way are not evidence.

During the P-T, a meteorite strike preceded the Deccan Traps sustained eruptions, opposite the strike. Look it up.

During the K-T, an asteroid-type object hit Chicxulub, preceding the sustained Siberian Traps eruptions. Look it up, or play some billiards.

 

[palerider]

During the P-T, a meteorite strike preceded the Deccan Traps sustained eruptions, opposite the strike. Look it up.

During the K-T, an asteroid-type object hit Chicxulub, preceding the sustained Siberian Traps eruptions. Look it up, or play some billiards.

I did look it up and saw nothing like proof that suggests that a meteorite impact could cause sustained volcanic activity.

I note that you avoided my request for proof of your claim that CO2 has caused warming altogether.

 

[bobgnote]

What happened after the large strikes, of the P-T and the K-T extinctions was an identical outcome, of million year trap-eruptions, on the other side, of the world, from the impact zone.

The basaltic lavas all came out, over thousands of years, but the traps areas stayed active, for on the order, of a million years each.

I see you have deliberately distorted anything I said, about how CO2 is the principal forcer, for either warming or cooling, but certainly, the Earth is due, to get a lot hotter. Don't feed the trolls! Later . . .