Warming ocean layers will undermine polar ice sheets

Jul 03, 2011
This view of the seaward edge of Antarctica’s floating Ross Ice Shelf shows a region where the ice is cracking and may produce an iceberg. Credit: Michael Van Woert, NOAA NESDIS, ORA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department of Commerce.

Warming of the ocean's subsurface layers will melt underwater portions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets faster than previously thought, according to new University of Arizona-led research. Such melting would increase the sea level more than already projected.

The research, based on 19 state-of-the-art , proposes a new mechanism by which will accelerate the melting of the great ice sheets during this century and the next.

The subsurface ocean layers surrounding the will warm substantially as global warming progresses, the scientists found. In addition to being exposed to warming air, underwater portions of the polar ice sheets and will be bathed in warming seawater.

The subsurface ocean along the coast could increase as much as 3.6 F (2 C) by 2100.

"To my knowledge, this study is the first to quantify and compare future ocean warming around the Greenland and the using an ensemble of models," said lead author Jianjun Yin, a UA assistant professor of geosciences.

Most previous research has focused on how increases in atmospheric temperatures would affect the ice sheets, he said.

"Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming because water has a much larger heat capacity than air," Yin said. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of , it will disappear in just minutes."

Given a mid-level increase in , the researchers found the ocean layer about 650 to 1,650 feet (200 to 500 meters) below the surface would warm, on average, about 1.8 F (1 C) by 2100.

This satellite image shows Greenland's Helheim glacier where it meets the sea. The glacier is on the left. Large and small icebergs pack the narrow fjord in the right part of the images. Bare ground appears brown or tan, while vegetation appears in shades of red. The Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) on NASA’s Terra satellite took the image in June 2005. Higher-resolution image is here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6207 Credit: NASA images created by Jesse Allen, Earth Observatory, using data provided courtesy of NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and the U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team.

Along the Greenland coast, that layer would warm twice as much, but along Antarctica would warm less, only 0.9 F (0.5 C).

"No one has noticed this before – that the subsurface oceans surrounding Greenland and Antarctica warm very differently," Yin said.

Part of the warming in the North comes from the Gulf Stream carrying warm subtropical waters north. By contrast, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current blocks some of the subtropical warmth from entering the Antarctic's coastal waters.

Even so, the Antarctic ice sheet will be bathed in warming waters, the team writes.

Co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck said, "This does mean that both Greenland and Antarctica are probably going melt faster than the scientific community previously thought."

Overpeck, a UA professor of geosciences and co-director of UA's Institute of the Environment, said, "This paper adds to the evidence that we could have rise by the end of this century of around 1 meter and a good deal more in succeeding centuries."

The paper by Yin, Overpeck and their colleagues, "Different Magnitudes of Projected Subsurface Ocean Warming Around Greenland and Antarctica," is scheduled for online publication in Nature Geoscience on July 3.

Their co-authors are UA assistant professor of geosciences Joellen L. Russell; Stephen M. Griffies and Ronald J. Stouffer of the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.; and Aixue Hu of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Other researchers have recently measured surprisingly high subsurface ocean temperatures along coastal glaciers in Greenland, Yin said. In addition, scientists have reported the Greenland and Antarctica glaciers that empty into the sea are moving faster.

Yin decided to figure out how much those subsurface currents would warm during this century and the next.

The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite captured this composite image of Antarctica’s ice-covered landscape on January 27, 2009. The surface appears rough where the Transantarctic Mountains curve in a shallow “s” from the shore of the Ross Sea to the Ronne Ice Shelf. The Polar Plateau in the center of the continent is smooth, shaded only by the faint shadow cast by clouds. The Weddell Sea is textured with chunks of sea ice. Download a high-resolution copy of the image here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36839 Credit: NASA image courtesy the MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC.

Glaciers are rivers of ice. Like rivers of liquid water, glaciers move downhill. Some glaciers melt before reaching the ocean, and others, called tidewater glaciers, flow all the way to the sea.

The face of a tidewater glacier visible from a boat is only part of it – much of the glacier's leading edge is underwater in a deep fjord.

Yin's research suggests Greenland's glaciers are being exposed to increasingly warm subsurface water that will melt the underwater portion of the glaciers. As a result, the tops of the glaciers will no longer have support and will topple into the sea, creating icebergs. In addition, as the undersides of the glaciers melt, that meltwater will speed the glaciers' movement into the sea by lubricating their undersides.

Ultimately, those glaciers will melt back so far they no longer reach the sea, the team writes.

In contrast, much more of the Antarctic ice sheet is based on land that is already below sea level. Therefore as the sheet melts back, the leading edge of the ice sheet will continue to be underwater. As such warming and melting continues into the 22nd century and beyond, parts of the Antarctic may disintegrate, the team writes.

Yin's next step is examining climate models that can zero in even further on the regional effects of climate warming on the and the ice sheets.

Explore further: NASA HS3 mission Global Hawk's bullseye in Hurricane Edouard

Related Stories

Warming oceans threaten Antarctic glaciers

Mar 15, 2007

Scientists have identified four Antarctic glaciers that pose a threat to future sea levels using satellite observations, according to a study published in the journal Science.

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, rate unknown

Feb 16, 2009

The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are melting, but the amounts that will melt and the time it will take are still unknown, according to Richard Alley, Evan Pugh professor of geosciences, Penn State.

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the southern United States

19 hours ago

In this image taken by the Aqua satellite of the southern United States actively burning areas as detected by MODIS's thermal bands are outlined in red. Each red hot spot is an area where the thermal detectors ...

User comments : 101

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (37) Jul 03, 2011
Oceans aren't warming.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2011
Oceans aren't warming.


It's for damn sure thate SOMETHING is warming, because your brain has already been cooked...

Wake up and smell the steam.

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (31) Jul 03, 2011
So highly speculative, it's laughable, Next, they'll tell us they have models which accurately predict lottery numbers for the year 2100!
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (27) Jul 03, 2011
research, based on 19 state-of-the-art climate models, . . . parts of the Antarctic ice sheet may disintegrate, . . .


How about a moratorium on climate scare stories until the experimental data are released that brought us Al Gore's original story of an "Inconvenient Truth"?

The data will show if this was an "Inconvenient Truth" or a "Convenient Untruth."

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
shadfurman
2.2 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2011
How fast we think the ice caps are melting seems to be increasing exponentially, you'd think they'd have been long gone by now. Pretty soon they'll be releasing stories that say they'll be gone tomorrow. (and of course nobody will report on why they're not the next day)
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2011
How fast we think the ice caps are melting seems to be increasing exponentially, you'd think they'd have been long gone by now.


Fortunately the ice stayed around long enough for another round of research proposals!
astro_optics
2.1 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2011
Interesting, so all this climate change predictions were done on obviously partial and inconclusive data...
XQZME
2 / 5 (23) Jul 03, 2011
Actual measurements show oceans are cooling.
http://www.skepti...ing.html
http://www.examin...-to-NASA
thermodynamics
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2011
XQZME: Did you notice that your reports are three years old with an update to one 2 years ago? In fact, the oceans are not cooling:

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

They are also not necessarily heating for the past few years. However, it is not a couple of years that makes much difference for a measurement like this, it is the increase over decades that is important.

Let me explain one issue with the heat content. The melting of ice requires 80 times more heat than warming an equal volume of water 1 deg C. In fact, melting is an isothermal process (which means that ice does not change temperature as it becomes water but it does take up considerable heat).

Another issues is that the measurements only cover the top 700 meters and no one has a good handle on mixing in deeper layers yet.

So, the ocean is not cooling. It is not clearly heating right now. It can be transferring heat to ice or mixing and the measurements can't answer that question. Continued
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2011
Continued(I hate the limit on post size): The NOAA graph (which is up-to-date) shows a noisy signal for the past seven years that I would be hard pressed to define as anything other than flat. Why it is flat is a legitimate question that scientists are trying to answer now. As I noted above, it can be mixing, phase change of ice, or other reasons. Couple the issue of rising sea level:

http://www.cmar.c...dex.html

And you have to break out the increase in sea level into its many parts. Expansion of the water due to heating is one component (oh, I forgot you believe it is cooling so the curve should be going the other way). Another part is an increase in the mass of water in the oceans (due to increased melt of ice sheets, glaciers, or snow runoff). Remember, phase change requires 80 times the energy as raising the same mass of water 1 degree.

Then don't forget deep mixing. So, a lot of things are going on, but the ocean is not cooling. Try a better reference
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (22) Jul 04, 2011
And you have to break out the increase in sea level into its many parts.
This is a logical fallacy. The seas have been "rising" for a long time, there's no proof it has anything to do with anthropomorphic causes - and the current rate isn't particularly unusual.

Another part is an increase in the mass of water in the oceans (due to increased melt of ice sheets, glaciers, or snow runoff).
It's not even ascertained this is the cause. There's little indication substantial quantities of land ice has melted. In fact, land ice is increasing in many glaciers and ice sheets (sea ice melting doesn't raise sea levels). And, it's arguable that it's simply adjusting to a more "normal" level.

Citation:

"Over most of geologic time, long-term sea level has been higher than today..."

and (from a graph caption):

"Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today."

http://en.wikiped...ea_level

jsa09
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2011
Yin said. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

Problem is that if ice is floating in water it doesn't matter if it melts or not. The ocean level will not change.
gmurphy
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2011
@ubavontuba, there's plenty indication that substantial quantities of land ice have melted, don't just take my word for it: http://amap.no/wo...=default (see the section titled "Melting Glaciers Contribute to Global Sea-level Rise")
jjackson
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2011
Yin said. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

Go take physics 101, sea water has a higher density than fresh water, if you melt fresh water ice in the ocean it does raise the water level.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2011
On this 235th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:"


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

May the next 235 years be better yet !

With best wishes,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Kingsix
2 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2011
Ahh the smell of scientists claiming they know whats going to happen to a system that they know reasonably nothing about. Smells like..money.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 04, 2011
Sure. Some glaciers have receded. But they receded from their Little Ice Age maximums. Sane people don't whine when the snow melts at the end of winter. Well, the LIA was Winter. This is spring. The MWP was warmer than today and glaciers were a lot smaller ... and then they grew and grew.

http://academic.e...cene.htm
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2011
@ubavontuba, there's plenty indication that substantial quantities of land ice have melted, don't just take my word for it: http://amap.no/wo...=default (see the section titled "Melting Glaciers Contribute to Global Sea-level Rise")

Irrelevant generic article from the early 2000's (so it appears). How does this say anyhting about what's happening to land ice mass today?
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2011
jsa09: You said: "Problem is that if ice is floating in water it doesn't matter if it melts or not. The ocean level will not change." If you read this article again, it talks about ice sheets. That is a specific term relating to ice on a solid surface. Ice shelves normally extend out into to the marginal ocean off the end of the ice sheet (unless it is isolated). This article talks about the effect of sea water on the ice sheets. This is not "sea ice" nor is it "ice shelves," instead it is the effect on "ice sheets" that they are concerned about. Yes, sea ice is melting quickly. So are the marginal shelves. However, the relief of pressure by the shelves and attack of suspended sheets is accelerating the mass loss of the ice sheets.

http://en.wikiped...ce_sheet

Please go read a few definitions before you fail the geophysics course.
MRyan
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2011
The problem that I see in this report, is that it says the data is based on a projection model. That model was designed and built by the same people that want us all to go running for the hills and beg them to save us from this coming horror. The one thing that I have learned in building computer models, is that they can be programed to do anything that the user wants. This is more of the same, no real data, no real science, no real facts. We are all just supposed to be afraid and beg them to take our money so they can find a way to save us.
MRyan
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2011
Another note: When is the science community going to stand against all these false reports. We all know that there is something changing on our planet. For the last 13 years, I have been obsessed with studies of the sun. I have found that (through historical accounts of ancient cultures)that there have been many events that have happened on this planet. When you look at the weather and it's behavior through history, you see that there are correlations with solar activity. I think that we need to stop looking to make a buck and work together to be prepared for a large change. It does not have to be a disaster if we work together to figure out what is going to actually happen and then work together to prepare for it(and no that should not mean make a profit off of it).
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2011
MRyan: Are you using the Mayan calendar that puts the end of the world in December 2012, the Christian calendar (as mistakenly interpreted as having already ended the world many times) that puts the end of the world in October of this year? Or are you just calculating your own end of the world with Oliver based on the neutron star in the middle of the sun? Please give us links to your 13 years of study of the sun so we can follow your insight.
MRyan
1.5 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2011
It is my opinion, that we are experiencing changes on our planet. For me the evidence points to the coming of a large Solar storm, the likes of which we have not seen in our modern world. UV radiation is on a clime, we are seeing changes and effects in our geomagnetic field. There is larger and fast shifts in the earth's magnetic poles. All of these things have direct and indirect effects and the atmosphere, jet streams and large currents. I feel that we are going to see this storm and it's effects in our life time, and I feel that we as a global society are ill prepared for the outcome. Too much time trying to convince the world that humans are responsible and we are forgetting that the planet reacts to things that humans have no control over.
MRyan
1.6 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2011
Thermodynamics: I am sorry that you feel there is something funny. No, I am not talking about an end of the world. I am not a spiritual person and I follow no religion. I am talking about something that is coming, this is based of the data studied and known, of the Solar cycles. The sun goes through patterns of lows and highs. In the past there as been major lows and major highs. I am talking about an event that will match or better the Solar Super Storm of 1859. The effects of a storm today would be far more devastating then they were then. As for linking you my studies, I will admit that I am not published, it was never a concern for me to be famous. Please do some reading on solar cycles and solar radiation effects on Earth's geomagnetic field. I apologize if you feel that I am not worth your time and effort because I am not published.
MRyan
1.5 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2011
just for a little discussion, The increased solar activity, produces larger Coronal Mass Ejections. This throws large amounts of solar radiation towards Earth. The more radiation against the Earths Geomagnetic field, affects the weather structure around the globe. This increases winds strength and in places it will shift the direction of that wind. It also affects the course and strength of currents in the water. These changes carries warmth from more tropical climates and carries them to the colder climates. This melts polar ice faster than normal. The Polar ice is also affected by the magnetic polar shifts that are happening, this allows larger amounts of Solar radiation into areas of the Polar regions that do not usually get exposed to those levels of Radiation. This also heats the ice and the surface water, eroding and melting the ice caps. These affects will diminish after the current solar cycle is over, however the changes will stay the same to some extent.
MRyan
1.9 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2011
The changes in water temperature, will shift currents, this will cause larger and more frequent storms throughout the oceans, this will cause weather patterns on land to shift, more moisture in areas that are not used to it, and less in other areas. There are many other things are going to be affected by these events, I will however leave that for someone else, seeing as I am not published(as I was recently informed, being published is the only thing that makes you viable in the science community)
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2011
@ MRyan

Be it obscure or of great renown, a red herring remains a red herring.
MRyan
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2011
@deepsand:

Please tell me what it is that I have said that appears to be a red herring. I would be happy to discuss anything that you have questions on.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2011
MrRyan: First, let me be clear. I was asking for any information that might support your 13 years of studying. I would expect you to point us at data showing some of the basis for your predictions. Specifically, I will point out one that should be straight forward.

You said: "The Polar ice is also affected by the magnetic polar shifts that are happening, this allows larger amounts of Solar radiation into areas of the Polar regions that do not usually get exposed to those levels of Radiation."

Please point out:

1 The magnitude of the polar shifts
2 The magnitude of the increase in radiation at the poles
3 How that affects the polar ice

See, that should be simple for you to point us to. We do it all the time on this site. Someone makes a statement and we ask for evidence. They point us to the data and everyone learns something. Otherwise, if there are no data then it is just mysticism. I will have other questions after you point us at this data.
MRyan
1 / 5 (2) Jul 04, 2011
Thermodynamics: My misunderstanding of your statement is embarrassing, I ask that you forgive me for that.
The first that I would recommend is a paper:
Ionospheric Effects of Solar Wind Magnetosphere Coupling in the Context of the Expanding Contracting Polar Cap Boundary Model
M. Lester, S. E. Milan, G. Provan and J. A. Wild

There are many more, I however cannot get them pasted here. The comment system is telling me that I cannot post the links. I will try to PM them to you.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2011
MRyan: Thank you for the paper. I am familiar with solar storms and stand in awe of the 1859 super-storm known as the "Carrington Super Flare." However, the paper did not address a number of your statements including:

1"The increased solar activity, produces larger Coronal Mass Ejections. This throws large amounts of solar radiation towards Earth. The more radiation against the Earths Geomagnetic field, affects the weather structure around the globe."

2 "There is larger and fast shifts in the earth's magnetic poles."..."The Polar ice is also affected by the magnetic polar shifts that are happening, this allows larger amounts of Solar radiation into areas of the Polar regions that do not usually get exposed to those levels of Radiation."

3 You seem to be the only person who can predict a recurrence of the 1859 super-flare. I agree we need to harden our electrical system and satellites but you seem to know when it will occur and what will happen.

Please address the above points.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2011
@ MRyan

The red herring is that, not only has Solar activity been in an EXTENDED MINIMUM, but that magnetic disturbances are of no material relevance to the matter of radiative forcing.

What may happen in the future as a result of Solar activity is immaterial to the present.
MRyan
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2011
@Thermodynamics: I understand that I am lacking backing up my statement. I am finding that I am not too well versed in the finer points of comment page software. I have tried over the last our to link data to you. I am not sure that I am going to be able to do it correctly. My son tells me that it is because they are pdf documents that are stored on an internet based server and the link does not translate to html directly.

@Deepsand: Yes we have been in an extended minimum, but the knowledge of the cycles that the sun goes through, tells us that the minimum is starting to end and that there is more than a large possibility that the maximum that we are going into is going to be one of the largest in record. And if you truly believe that there is no material relevance to this on us now and in the future, then you are ignoring the details and science.
MRyan
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2011
@Thermodynamics: I want to add that I am in no way predicting when that this is going to happen. I am only stating that believe that this is something that is coming in our near life time. If I could predict it and had a way of proving that to the world, why on earth would I be posting in these conversations. I appreciate your criticism, and I understand that you do not believe, I am not here to turn anyone to my thinking, that is not my place. I see something coming and I fear that it is being over looked. I do not buy into the Mayan dooms day theory, nor do I think that the religious nuts that are saying that the world is ending have any facts. I am not saying that the world is going to end, I am saying that there are some major changes coming. I am sorry that my differing beliefs have offended and bothered you so, I will try to refrain from posting things that are contrary to the party line in the future.
MRyan
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2011
Seeing as how my statements have diverted the conversations to nothing more than bashing my theories, I will be signing off and leaving things be for the time. I am sorry for anything that has bothered offended or otherwise upset anyone. I know that there are not a lot of people that agree in my understands and findings, I did however think that this was a place to discuss things rather than be shut down for having an idea outside of the mainstream. I do believe that there is a major event coming that is going to be caused by increased activity from our sun.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2011
@Deepsand: Yes we have been in an extended minimum, but the knowledge of the cycles that the sun goes through, tells us that the minimum is starting to end and that there is more than a large possibility that the maximum that we are going into is going to be one of the largest in record. And if you truly believe that there is no material relevance to this on us now and in the future, then you are ignoring the details and science.

Did you misread? Or, simply choose to misrepresent.

I said nothing re. the future, but rather than the matters you cite are IMMATERIAL TO THE PRESENT.

As for the future maximum, preliminary reports seem to indicate, not "one of the largest in record" as you state, but quite the opposite; i.e., could the one of the smallest on record.

In any case, maximums of the past and future are immaterial to both the now concluding minimum and radiative forcing.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2011
Wow. I challenge an old reference and I get downranked for it by deepsand, MikeyK, Excalibur, thermodynamics, and Caliban. Yet those same posters insist AGW is "science." How is it science if you aren't even open-minded enough to address the weaknesses in your own sides' references?

Biased much?

Now, we have a red herring to talk about.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (20) Jul 05, 2011
Elementary, Dr. Watson, elementary. Your reasoning is flawed.

At best, you cherry pick data, while ignoring First Principles.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2011
Elementary, Dr. Watson, elementary. Your reasoning is flawed.
Meaningless ad hominem.

At best, you cherry pick data,
Baseless ad hominen.

while ignoring First Principles.
To what "First Principles" do you refer? You apparently don't even understand the first principles of the scientific method. I've questioned your bias, and your response only serves to emphasize it.

The one cherry picking the data is you, as evidenced by your refusal to adequately address this question: "How is it science if you aren't even open-minded enough to address the weaknesses in your own ...references?"

And browbeating people (with downrankings and ad hominems, for example) is not winning your point. If you have science on your side ...bring it. Otherwise, you're nothing more than an obnoxious putz.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Jul 05, 2011
Best look up the definition of "ad hominem."

Ditto re. "cherry picking;" which, I cannot be guilty of as I've not cited any data at all! And, is, by definition, not ad hominem as it is a fact of material relevance that exists independent of the individual.

As for First Principles, you've been around here long enough such that feigning ignorance isn't going to fly.

The only ad hominem remark present here is your own closing remark.

You are a sophist who, when taken to task, resorts to that which you falsely accuse others of.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2011
Uba,

Sorry, dude, but I think I was the first to rank your comment a 1. But understand it wasn't from any feeling of personal rancor, but rather an assessment of the comment's merit -that is to say, that your comment is pretty much flatly contradicted by virtually every article I've read, especially in the past year- regarding the land ice balance. Glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking at greater or leasser rates in all four hemispheres. Himalayan glaciers. Alpine Glaciers. Scandinavian glaciers, Andean glaciers, Rockies glaciers, Greenland glaciers, and Antarctic glaciers, along with land/sea ice at both poles and Greenland. there are isolated areas of positive ice growth, but not nearly enough to even begin to offset, much less reverse the current trend.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2011
Best look up the definition of "ad hominem."
Right, 'cause it's obvious you don't understand it.

ad hominem
1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments
2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason

http://www.thefre...y.com/ad hominem

Your arguments were obviously directed against me.

Ditto re. "cherry picking;" which, I cannot be guilty of as I've not cited any data at all!
Disallowing unwanted information is a form of cherry picking.

cherry-pick
to choose or take the best or most profitable of (a number of things), esp for one's own benefit or gain

http://www.thefre...-picking

By abusing those who would bring in data you're uncomfortable with, you're trying to control and minimize the perceived value of unwanted data. Ergo, you're cherry picking.

You are a sophist who, when taken to task, resorts to that which you falsely accuse others of.
Another ad hominem? Really? Are they all you have?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2011
@Caliban:

Sorry, dude, but I think I was the first to rank your comment a 1. But understand it wasn't from any feeling of personal rancor, but rather an assessment of the comment's merit -that is to say, that your comment is pretty much flatly contradicted by virtually every article I've read,
This belies your claim of objectivity, as you're obviously downranking the person, and not the comment - as the comment your apparently discussing here - is another, altogether!

My comment was in regards to questioning the merits of an "Irrelevant generic article from the early 2000's..." All I asked for is a clarification as to its merits. How does that "contradict" anything?

So, since you were so quick to improperly downrank my query, why don't you now take the time to properly address it - providing current references and data sets? Can you?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
...especially in the past year
Really? Did you not read that most of the North American Rockies had like 200% of normal snowfall this past season?

Try doing a little research. You'll strangely find that most of the data used in GW papers cuts off at 2008. Why? Becasuse since then, the data has sharply skewed away from their expectations!

New data:

"Wyomings Climate: May 2011

Mountain snowpack continued to be the major story in Wyoming this month. By the end of May, statewide snow water equivalent (SWE) topped an astounding 327% of historical average (compared to 1971-2000)."

http://www.wrds.u...1May.pdf

More:

http://denver.cbs...untains/

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 06, 2011
...continued:

There's unprecedented levels of snow on the ground.

I mean just look at this map:

http://www.wcc.nr...1106.gif

Even some climate scientists who first sounded the land ice alarms have backed down from this stance.

http://appliedcli...ictions/

Can you handle all the new data? Are you still with me, Caliban?

The following is from a post by NotParker:

Multi-Year Ice Has Grown More Than 30% In The Last Three Years

http://stevengodd...e-years/

Antarctic Sea Ice is fine

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Me (Uba) again. Are you still with me? How much data do you need to get the point? Shall I go on?

More...

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2011
Look. NOAA data which shows glacier mass has been growing since about 2002:

http://www.ncdc.n...cier?del[]=wgms_all_glaciers&del[]=wgms_ref_glaciers

Seriously, isn't it becoming apparent yet that the current data contradicts your claim that everything is melting?

Seriously, try doing a little research before you go spouting off.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
Here's a simplified view of the Glacier Mass Balance
averages from the graph above (copy and paste):

http:/www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/glacier?del[]=wgms_all_glaciers&del[]=wgms_ref_glaciers

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
One more thing. The University of Wyoming is currently reporting the Statewide average snow water equivalent (SWE) is now as high as 1527% above average!

http://www.wrds.u...1Jun.pdf

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2011
@thermodynamics:

Downrankings again? Really? After our last conversation in which you swore it was all about the science? Really?
Maybe you think the NOAA, the National Water and Climate Center, the University of Wyoming, and other prestigious science gathering organizations, aren't "science-y" enough?

You, out of all the downrankers, should be most ashamed.

deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2011
What does that tell you about your so-called objectivity?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2011
What does that tell you about your so-called objectivity?
That I have it, and you don't.
Excalibur
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 06, 2011
So, your self-appraisal is superior to that of others?

So much for peer review and adhering to the Scientific Method.

ROTFLMAO.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2011
ubavontuba: You are upset at my downranking your links. I do admit that supplying links is a good thing to do. However, the links you supplied were specious. Let me give you a few specifics.

Colorado ice and snow is weather not climate.

Kilimanjaro was an early estimate and those making it are sorry they did. However, they are still losing ice.

The arctic is not gaining ice. It is higher than it was three years ago because that was a record minimum. However the arctic ice has been low for the past 5 years. Here is a site for the daily arctic sea ice:

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

Note it is near the record lows.

It is reasons like that that I choose to mark you down is because they are cherry picked out of data that tells a different story. What am I supposed to do when you link to a site and then tell a different story from either the site or the actual data?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2011
I should probably have given you the master link for the sea ice instead of just the .jpg. It is here:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Read that and tell me that the ice pack is in good shape.
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
From the caption above:

the seaward edge of Antarcticas floating Ross Ice Shelf


From the second caption:

Such melting would increase the sea level


Basic middle school science. Ice is bouyant. When floating ice melts it doesn't change the water level. The Ross Ice Shelf is already in the Ocean and its effect on sea level is already done. There's a tiny difference in salinity but that won't produce a measurable effect on global sea level. Any ice that's exposed to sea water on the bottom is already floating and is not a factor in sea level rise if it melts. BTW, glaciers and ice sheets do not shrink from the seaward side. They shrink from the top and from the sides, on land. The force that causes them to advance into the ocean is called growth. It's the weight of the ice being added higher up that forces them down into the sea. That is basic glacier science too. U of Deleware had a good page about it once, but I can't find it now.
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
to Thermo:

Please go read a few definitions before you fail the geophysics course.


You are dead wrong.

Being an Engineer, you should know better. Ice is not structurally rigid. At the scale of a continental ice sheet it is in fact a fluid. Once the ice reaches the sea, it is no longer supported by the land, even though it may still be connected. The ice which they are talking about above (the ice with sea water under it) is already floating, maybe except for a relatively narrow band right next to the land. In some cases that actually has the opposit effect though. They say that some of the boundry ice is actually partially submerged, rather than being supported by the land, it's being pushed down into the water by the ice it is connected to. That's a miniscule effect though.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
Let me repeat this important point Thermo:

Melting the ice at the sea does not speed up the flow of the ice from the land to the sea. The flow of the ice from the land to the sea is directly related to the growth of the ice sheet. A shrinking ice sheet will slow down, but shrinking happens on land, not at the sea. The part that has reached the sea is in all practical sense already lost. It's just waiting to break off. It is hillarious when people talk about the Ross Ice Shelf collapsing. That is a complete misconception that probably came from Hollywood. The idea that the ice sheet is somehow suspended in the air like some giant cantilever arm is completely absurd. Any basic statics and dynamics student can tell you that. That's first year engineering material.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
BTW, I sure would like to know which 19 climate models they used that have multi-layer ocean heat content simulations in them. I wasn't aware that there were very many of them. That is an area with notoriously poor representation in the models. Recent research has noted that the models overestimate ocean heating anyway, so I wonder if the story above is taking that into account or not? How does this kind of junk pass peer review? Was this peer reviewed?
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2011
Recent research has noted that the models overestimate ocean heating anyway, so I wonder if the story above is taking that into account or not?


Before you even ask, here's a reference. See section 9.5.1.1, paragraph 5 of the IPCC 4th AR.

there is some evidence that the models have overestimated how rapidly heat has penetrated below the oceans mixed layer


That has been further confirmed since then. They even mention it in the last sentence of the next to last paragraph of this realclimate page, though I'm sure it killed them to type the words:

http://www.realcl...visions/

lol, why do they do their trends start after 1960 when the data goes back prior to 1950? Why even include that data in the graph when it's just going to make people like me ask that question? Oh well, that's typical Gavin Schmidt for you.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2011
You are upset at my downranking your links. I do admit that supplying links is a good thing to do. However, the links you supplied were specious.
Liar. My links are of the highest quality and relevance.

Let me give you a few specifics.
You're just rationalizing your blatant disregard for science with strawman arguments. For example:

Colorado ice and snow is weather not climate.
Strawman argument. When did I claim otherwise?

Kilimanjaro was an early estimate and those making it are sorry they did. However, they are still losing ice.
Another strawman. When did I claim otherwise? I even provided the link which explains it.

...the arctic ice has been low for the past 5 years.
Strawman. When did I claim otherwise?

What am I supposed to do when you link to a site and then tell a different story from either the site or the actual data?
How about honestly arguing the argument(s) at hand, rather than making up your own strawman arguments?

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2011
....cont:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Read that and tell me that the ice pack is in good shape.
Right. Did you notice where it states:

ice extent this year was greater than in June 2010.

and:

This is 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) above the previous record low for the month, set in June 2010,

and, did you notice they blame the "weather" for extreme melting conditions and not the climate:

weather over the next few weeks will determine whether the Arctic sea ice cover will again approach record lows.

And the graph you provided is designed to look bad, as it shows seasonal Arctic maximum to Arctic minimum. You could just as easily show minimums to maximums and it'd be just as valid.

And, I never claimed the Arctic sea ice hasn't decreased. I've only stated it's irrelevant to sea levels. But I'm sure you'll strawman this up, somehow...

Did you know Greenland is suffing from unusually late season snowbound conditions?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2011
GSwift7: You are absolutely correct that floating ice does not increase sea level to any appreciable amount. However, I do disagree with your observation that the loss of an ice shelf does not accelerate loss of the ice sheet (or glaciers). I am not sure where that idea comes from. You are correct about elasticity and plasticity. My view of what is happening reflects the Wikipedia view (see the section on Boundary Conditions):

http://en.wikiped...dynamics

They, and I are under the impression that the collapse of the Larson-B shelf did accelerate the movement of the feeding glaciers.

You said: "Melting the ice at the sea does not speed up the flow of the ice from the land to the sea. The flow of the ice from the land to the sea is directly related to the growth of the ice sheet."

And I agree with the relation to growth but disagree with the idea that loss at the shelf does not affect flow.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2011
Thanks for many great comments.

The public is awakening!

Obama will probably not have money for climate propaganda if the budget negotiations continue on the present path.

Of course, research grants were funded by Congress to support research - not government propaganda - in the first place.

See Professor Curry's blog on the latest finding of the UN IPCCs alteration of climate results:

http://judithcurr...results/
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2011
uba,

Well, you pretty much confirmed the case for cherry-picking. And once again(as I remember from the last time we went around on this exact same issue) you cite sources that glancinglingly support your case or are of little, if any, relevance -i.e. Wyoming snow pack, and graphs of ice cover that level off for a year or two before the plotting stops(also ending at about 2008), so any claims you make to possessing superior quality data are also spurious.

I will freely admit, however, that you deliver your commentary with real chutzpah, and an otherwise Damn-the- torpedoes and Devil-take-the-hindmost derring-do!

Unfortunately, that savoir faire won't suffice to carry the day, because regardless of how forceful and persuasive your rhetoric, the facts you present just don't support the extravagance of your claims.

Sorry to have to be the one to break the news to you.

We are in broad agreement elsewhere, so more's the pity we don't agree here.

omatumr
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2011
Sorry to have to be the one to break the news to you.


But the global climate scam is now crumbling faster than a cookie in hot coffee!

Obama probably won't have money to support this fiasco in next year's budget.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Ice and cold global temperatures remain, but the AGW scare destroyed the Western economies even faster than the AGW advocates had anticipated.

That's the end of AGW tale.

Oliver K. Manuel
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2011
Ice and cold global temperatures remain, but the AGW scare destroyed the Western economies even faster than the AGW advocates had anticipated.

Oliver K. Manuel


That's quite an extravagant claim, there, Oliver. You could probably rely on marjon to back you on it, but what would you really be accomplishing in the case?

You may have already crossed over into the Land of Crank, but at least your ideas are harmless - and may even contain some elements of truth. Why would you want to get in line for some of that koolaid that marjon is dispensing?

GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2011
to Thermo:

You have cause and effect backwards. Calving/melting at the edges is proportional to speed of flow. From your own source, you have the process a little confused. You see, the ice at the bottom of an ice sheet stays in one place. In antarctica, the land actually slopes down hill as you go inland, not the other way around. What makes the ice flow is that the ice in the center is stacked up so high that it actually starts to spread out, like if you pile sand too high. The bottom of the ice moves very little, or not at all, and the top of the ice moves fastest. Most people don't get that. Melting along the edge will not affect that process. The mass of ice at the highest points on the ice sheet determine the rate of flow, along with internal composition. It is a system attempting to reach equilibrium. Faster flow is the product of prior growth, and will equilibriate then slow back down later.
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2011
Just to be clear. Yes, I said that a large part of antarctica is below sea level, especially west antarctica, which they are talking about in the story above. The weight of the ice has pushed the continent down in the center.

If you want sources, I'm sure I can find some, but all that stuff is just general knowledge. By the way, wiki sucks for this kind of stuff.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
GS7: It is not unusual that we are talking past each other on-line. Part of that is the character limit and part of that is that we just don't say everything when we type (or I don't). I assume you understand that I have looked at the geophysics or Antarctica and that I understand the shape. I also understand the forces that are involved. I have just not talked about them. Instead I focused on one effect that you have not acknowledged as being important. Let me try to be a little more clear. I mentioned that thick ice is elastic and/or plastic under different situations. Ice is also heterogeneous in that there can be fissures and underlying rivers or fluidized solids. The thicker the ice, the more it tends to flow (unless it is below sea level and then it will not flow out. However, even ice in a bowl like depression will allow the top ice to flow toward the edges if the ice is piled deep enough. Continued (I hate the character limit).
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2011
By the way, calving is the primary mechanism of ice loss. It FAR EXCEDES any melting.

Here's a good article from Penn State that covers the basics:

http://live.psu.e...ry/36291

His proposition that warmer water will "lubricate" the bottom of the ice and speed it up is also flawed. Pressure and friction already cause melting on the bottom and the flow of melted water is outbound from the ice, not inbound from the sea. Once again, if the ice isn't resting on solid bedrock then it is floating and that melting isn't a sea level factor.

The Ross ice shelf extends 500 miles out into the sea. It is floating. Melting along its edge wont change anything.

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
Continued: I think we both know enough materials science and dynamics to understand that the loss of the shelves or calving of icebergs off the outflow helps to relieve the pressure at the end of the glacier. If the glacier is not flowing into the ocean, this doesn't matter. However, both the Arctic region (not sea ice) including Greenland and the Antarctic region have substantial numbers of glaciers that flow to the oceans. Having said that, there are numerous physical processes that control the flow. The plugging at the end of the glacier is one of them. Let me give you an engineering example that we should have both had back in school. If we have an open water pipe (it could be an open creek), the flow of water in the pipe will be constrained by a number of factors including pipe diameter, pipe roughness, water temperature, and the shape of the opening. We get pressure drops at every point in the pipe (or the water would not flow). Continued
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
GS7: This is a perfect example why this format of discussion is difficult. I posted another part of the overview and mentioned calving while you were pounding me on not talking about calving. Do you really think I don't understand that? Getting back to calving, the reason you get substantial calving has to do with the mechanical and geophysical circumstances where the ice flow meets the ocean. Some places calve, some places have ice shelves. We both understand that so please don't try to make it look like I don't understand things like that and I will try to assume you understand the mechanics and material properties involved. That lets both of us learn (and I have learned a lot from our discussions) without too much rancor (and I don't mind some but when you jump in in the middle of my discussion when I have "continued" at the bottom to tell me I have left something off, remember I might be including it in a later part of the post (or I could have forgotten it). Cont.

GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2011
loss of the shelves or calving of icebergs off the outflow helps to relieve the pressure at the end of the glacier


That is fiction. There is no 'pressure' holding an ice sheet back when it reaches the ocean. They flow right out on top of the ocean. In fact, you have it backward. The area of high friction/pressure is when the ice is on land. Once it reaches the ocean there is a huge relaxation of pressure as the ice is free to expand in all directions and there's virtually no friction underneath. Faster melting might slightly reduce the number of ice bergs that calve but it won't change the overall rate at which the ice enters the ocean. As I said above, the rate of calving excedes the rate of melting by so much that melting is an insignificant factor.
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2011
okay, sorry, I'll wait till you are done and I'll stop cross-posting. Good point.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2011
GS7: Have you had your coffee today? I am going to get some of my own and have to be away from the computer for a while. I will try to continue the discussion later. Let me be clear. The Larsen-B event was just large scale calving. I completely agree with the point that calving is a more active way of losing ice than melting for a number of reasons. You seem to have grabbed on to the idea that since I mentioned Larsen-B and did not include the word "calving" fast enough that I don't understand that it takes a lot more energy to melt ice than it does to break a piece off. There is also the issue of grounding lines which you have not mentioned - but I am not going to jump on and accuse you of not understanding because I know you do. Let's keep this civil and maybe we can both learn a little more (I know I always have more to learn about a field that is not my specialty). I am running out of characters again and out of time so I will continue this later. Cont.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2011
I think I see where you are going with the water pipe analogy, and I'm wondering if you will have an epiphony before you complete it. Think about water on a table, not a pipe. :)
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2011
Do you have something to add here caliban?

I see that you downrated me and then uprated thermo for agreeing with me. That doesn't make much sense. There is a large volume of existing ice sheet research that disagrees with this new 'study'. I have provided plenty of solid references. Theremo is arguing against me on the false premise that ice at the edge of the ice sheet somehow holds back ice from flowing out to the edge. That simply isn't the case. Besides, the paper above is still using the out of date model assumptions that overestimate ocean warming below the surface. That overestimation isn't some skeptic invention, as my reference from Gavin Schmidt above shows.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2011
@Caliban:

Wyoming snow pack, and graphs of ice cover that level off for a year or two before the plotting stops(also ending at about 2008),
What? Are you an nuts? My data was current to last month! ...directly addressing your false claims of extensive glacier and ice melt, "especially in the past year."

claims you make to possessing superior quality data are also spurious.
Define "superior." Maybe you think the NOAA, the National Water and Climate Center, the University of Wyoming, and other prestigious science gathering organizations, aren't "science-y" enough?

you deliver your commentary with real chutzpah, and an otherwise Damn-the- torpedoes and Devil-take-the-hindmost derring-do!
LOL! I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

We are in broad agreement elsewhere, so more's the pity we don't agree here.
My intentions are the same. I try to provide good critical arguments, with the best quality science available. Agreement is nice, but not necessary.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2011
Ubavonatuba - "Seriously, isn't it becoming apparent yet that the current data contradicts your claim that everything is melting?"

Could you look at the 2008 - 2009 data - and tell me you still don't think the glaciers are melting?" Here is a ref. for the World Glacier Monitoring Service - saying - "The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative." http://www.wgms.c...m09.html
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2011
@djr:
Seriously, isn't it becoming apparent yet that the current data contradicts your claim that everything is melting?
Could you look at the 2008 - 2009 data - and tell me you still don't think the glaciers are melting?"
Seriously? "2008 - 2009 data?" This isn't current data!

And, your reference is clearly a biased "climate change" advocacy site, as clearly evidenced in their mission statement:

the WGMS runs the Global Terrestrial Network for Glaciers (GTN-G) in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change...
If they weren't biased, why then don't they provide data from the last two seasons? Did these last two seasons just not happen? (sarcasm)

Seriously, if you want to make claims about the climate, find some current data!
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2011
Seriously? "2008 - 2009 data?" This isn't current data!

Do you have more current data? Please share!!!!

Yes the web site is a bias site - but they were giving data from a scientific organization - if you have data to contradict theirs - please share. Did you look at the 30 year trend data? Do you have data to contradict this??
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2011
Seriously, if you want to make claims about the climate, find some current data!

The data you referenced only goes to 2008!! Check it out.. http://www.ncdc.n...cier?del Jeeesh...
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2011
Do you have more current data? Please share!!!!
I already have! Did you miss them?

Yes the web site is a bias site...
'Nuff said.

The data you referenced only goes to 2008!! Check it out.. http://www.ncdc.n...cier?del Jeeesh...
Really? That's the only link, I provided, that you saw? Really?

omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2011
Ice and cold global temperatures remain, but the AGW scare destroyed the Western economies even faster than the AGW advocates had anticipated.

Oliver K. Manuel


That's quite an extravagant claim, there, Oliver. You could probably rely on marjon to back you on it, but what would you really be accomplishing in the case?

You may have already crossed over into the Land of Crank, but at least your ideas are harmless - and may even contain some elements of truth. Why would you want to get in line for some of that kool-aid . . .


Thanks for your comment.

Einstein also encountered opposition from cranks:

www.hindu.com/fli...2600.htm

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2011
I already have! Did you miss them?

I missed them because they are not there. I just went back through all of your posts on this thread. Please give me a reference that supports your claim "that data contradicts your claim that everything is melting." And a discussion of snow pack on certain mountain tops does not do it. We are talking about the glaciers, and the ice sheets. They are melting - you have provided no data to support a suggestion that they are not melting. You criticize me because I supplied data that covers up to 2009 - and then you provide NOAA data that goes to 2004, and 2008. Please supply a link that contradicts the data I provided a link to. "I already did" is not good enough - it show that you do not have the data - but continue stubbornly with your denial about the reality that our planet is warming - and we better frickin figure out if we can do something about it.
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2011
ubavonatuba - you wanted some more up to date info - here is June 2011. I quote - "Arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979, continuing the trend of declining summer ice cover." The link - http://nsidc.org/...dex.html
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2011
@djr:

I missed them because they are not there.
Denial isn't a river in Egypt, and it isn't winning your case.

I just went back through all of your posts on this thread.
With blinders on?

Please give me a reference that supports your claim "that data contradicts your claim that everything is melting."
You forgot the most relevant part: "especially in the past year." You did see that late season snow report from Wyoming (for instance) which is reporting 1,127% of normal snow in June, didn't you? How could they have all that late season snow, if it's melting more than ever?

And a discussion of snow pack on certain mountain tops does not do it. We are talking about the glaciers, and the ice sheets.
You do know that glaciers and ice sheets are (generally) made of snow, don't you?

They are melting - you have provided no data to support a suggestion that they are not melting.
Explain: How could they be melting, buried under all that snow?

cont...
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2011
Ice and cold global temperatures remain, but the AGW scare destroyed the Western economies even faster than the AGW advocates had anticipated.

Oliver K. Manuel


That's quite an extravagant claim, there, Oliver. You could probably rely on marjon to back you on it, but what would you really be accomplishing in the case?

You may have already crossed over into the Land of Crank, but at least your ideas are harmless - and may even contain some elements of truth. Why would you want to get in line for some of that kool-aid . . .


Thanks for your comment.

Einstein also encountered opposition from cranks:

[...]

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo


Nice elision there, Oliver -and clever of you to elevate yourself and your crankdom to higher ground by comparing yourself to Einstein.

Perhaps you could write a book about your struggle.

Allow me to suggest a title: "Oliver Agonistes".

Caliban
4.6 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2011
@Caliban:


"Wyoming snow pack, and graphs of ice cover that level off for a year or two before the plotting stops(also ending at about 2008)"
What? Are you an nuts? My data was current to last month! ...directly addressing your false claims of extensive glacier and ice melt, "especially in the past year."


Snow extent isn't ice balance. And your ice balance graph(the plotted "mean") does just what I said- levels off after a couple of years of rebound, and the data ends approx 2007-8.

"claims you make to possessing superior quality data are also spurious."
Define "superior."
By "superior" I mean data that clearly supports your claims, as opposed to seasonal, annual, or other short-term reversals of trend.

you deliver your commentary with real chutzpah, and an otherwise Damn-the- torpedoes and Devil-take-the-hindmost derring-do! LOL! I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you!


And so it was intended -albeit sarcastically. You're welcome.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2011
You criticize me because I supplied data that covers up to 2009 - and then you provide NOAA data that goes to 2004, and 2008.
I showed a graph with an upward trend. Like most warmist data it ends in 2008, ostensibly because the current data has skewed warmest expectations so severely, they're afraid to report it.

Please supply a link that contradicts the data I provided a link to. "I already did" is not good enough
If you can't/won't read the references I've already provided, why should I believe you'd read anything additional?

- it show that you do not have the data
Then how did I already supply it?

but continue stubbornly with your denial about the reality that our planet is warming -
When did I deny that?

and we better frickin figure out if we can do something about it.
Why? Haven't you heard? The biosphere is booming!

http://wattsupwit...e-cause/

(verify with embedded NASA links)
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2011
ubavonatuba - you wanted some more up to date info - here is June 2011. I quote - "Arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979, continuing the trend of declining summer ice cover." The link - http://nsidc.org/...dex.html
So?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2011
@Calaban:
Snow extent isn't ice balance. And your ice balance graph(the plotted "mean") does just what I said- levels off after a couple of years of rebound, and the data ends approx 2007-8.
You're intelligent. Why aren't you curious why they stopped supplying data at that point?

Snow extent isn't ice balance.
So where then, would you suggest landbound ice comes from?

"claims you make to possessing superior quality data are also spurious."
So, then you DO think the NOAA, the National Water and Climate Center, the University of Wyoming, and other prestigious science gathering organizations, aren't "science-y" enough? What have you got that's better?

By "superior" I mean data that clearly supports your claims, as opposed to seasonal, annual, or other short-term reversals of trend.
But it was largely about "the past year" as per your claim!

You're better than this, Caliban. Think about it.

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2011
You're intelligent. Why aren't you curious why they stopped supplying data at that point?


Somewhat. But more to the point- the graph doesn't support your claim.

"Snow extent isn't ice balance." So where then, would you suggest landbound ice comes from?


Generally speaking, it derives from whatever snow cover survives the Summer melt season. For the purposes of this argument, you can't call it "ice" yet.

"claims you make to possessing superior quality data are also spurious." So, then you DO think the NOAA, the National Water and Climate Center, the University of Wyoming, and other prestigious science gathering organizations, aren't "science-y" enough?


Not at all. I'm saying that they don't support your argument.

But it was largely about "the past year" as per your claim!


OK, but again, I say that your data don't support your claim, for the above given reasons. How many different ways do I have to say it?

djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2011
Ubavonatuba "So" That really sums it up doesn't it? You ask for more recent data - someone supplies it. The data does not support your world view - and the response is "so". I guess at least if any one else is still reading at this point - they get to see the level of your reasoning. I just wish the denier camp would let the scientists do their job - figure out what is going on - and maybe we can begin talking about the possibility of solutions. The politicisation (sp) of science is so frustrating. When climate change is looked at in the context of world food supplies, population increase, world geopolitics - there seems so much to worry about - if only we could get past the ideology - oh well.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Jul 10, 2011
Ubavonatuba
I guess at least if any one else is still reading at this point - they get to see the level of your reasoning.

Precisely why some of us have stopped wasting our breath, and just give 1 ratings.

All they have to do to stop those from coming in is to be rational. In the mean time, let them bitch.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2011
@Caliban:
Somewhat. But more to the point- the graph doesn't support your claim.
Sure it does. It clearly shows that land ice mass hasn't decreased since 2002, contradicting your claim that melt is increasing.

Generally speaking, it derives from whatever snow cover survives the Summer melt season. For the purposes of this argument, you can't call it "ice" yet.
But logically, the ice underneath all that snow certainly isn't melting, right? And as we have so much of it this late in the season, logically, much of it is likely to survive the summer ...wouldn't you think?

{q]Not at all. I'm saying that they don't support your argument. Obviously, I disagree. Land ice can't melt under piles of insulating snow.

OK, but again, I say that your data don't support your claim, for the above given reasons. How many different ways do I have to say it?
Then what would?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2011
@djr:
Ubavonatuba "So" That really sums it up doesn't it? You ask for more recent data - someone supplies it.
Your data was irrelevant. The argument is over sea level rise due to melting. Sea ice melt doesn't affect sea levels.

figure out what is going on - and maybe we can begin talking about the possibility of solutions.
Solutions for what? Didn't you read my biosphere reference? What are you afraid of? Things are getting better!

The politicisation (sp) of science is so frustrating.
Indeed.

When climate change is looked at in the context of world food supplies, population increase, world geopolitics - there seems so much to worry about - if only we could get past the ideology - oh well.
Hello? Is this thing on? The biosphere is booming! Even the infamous Sahel (sub-Saharan Africa) is greening! Would you really want to go back to starving these people?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2011
@deepsand
Precisely why some of us have stopped wasting our breath, and just give 1 ratings.
Your moniker is fitting. Burying your head in "deepsand" and ignoring current data because it contradicts your world view, won't change the facts. It just leaves you ignorant.

deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2011
And, right on schedule, the usual ad hominem retort.

Do you denialists all go to the same school to learn sophistry?
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2011
Your moniker is fitting. Burying your head in "deepsand" and ignoring current data because it contradicts your world view, won't change the facts. It just leaves you ignorant.

We agree on something - we just disagree on who is burying their head in the sand. Have you noticed that almost every science article reported on physorg calls us to understand that their is a problem with our changing climate - and we are facing a serious problem? And each article is attacked by the denialists I guess it is time for me to quit - and go tend my garden - here in Oklahoma - where we are breaking every heat record in the book. I know I know - weather does not equal climate. I wonder what we are going to do when we exhaust the Ogilala. Some areas of Texas are facing that one now. We will be facing it soon. Do some reading on water depletion if you want to understand what we will soon be facing. Signing off. David.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2011
The discussion you guys are having about North Pole ice cover is really kinda moot. When you look at the data for ice cover you must keep in mind that the best data we have isn't very good. It only deals with 2-dimensional sea area covered with ice, based on people reviewing satellite and aircraft photography. There is a fairly large margin for error since it is sometimes difficult to tell clouds from ice in those photos. It is also impossible to tell loose pack ice from thick multi-seasonal ice from those photos. This year and the two years before, the ice has been pushed up against Canada by wind and air pressure. The ice is likely to be squished up against the continent, but detailed thickness data just isn't available. Since October we have had the first satellite to accurately measure the ice, Cryosat 2. The truth is that we really don't know much right now. Glacier data is even worse, and there's no forseeabl hope to improve it. Satellites don't 'see' well on mountainous terrain