Greenland glacier loses ice island twice the size of Manhattan

Jul 17, 2012 By Tracey Bryant
Petermann Glacier connects the Greenland ice sheet to the Arctic Ocean. The vast flat expanse stretching into the background is Petermann Glacier, well over one-third of which has now broken off. Credit: Courtesy of Prof. Andreas Muenchow, University of Delaware

(Phys.org) -- An ice island twice the size of Manhattan has broken off from Greenland’s Petermann Glacier, according to researchers at the University of Delaware and the Canadian Ice Service. The Petermann Glacier is one of the two largest glaciers left in Greenland connecting the great Greenland ice sheet with the ocean via a floating ice shelf.

Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering in UD’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, reports the calving on July 16, 2012, in his “Icy Seas” blog. Muenchow credits Trudy Wohleben of the Canadian Ice Service for first noticing the fracture. 

The discovery was confirmed by reprocessing data taken by MODIS, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aboard NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.

At 46 square miles (120 square km), this latest is about half the size of the mega-calving that occurred from the same glacier two years ago. The 2010 chunk, also reported by Muenchow, was four times the size of Manhattan. 

“While the size is not as spectacular as it was in 2010, the fact that it follows so closely to the 2010 event brings the glacier’s terminus to a location where it has not been for at least 150 years,” Muenchow says.

An ice island twice the size of Manhattan has calved from Petermann Glacier off northern Greenland. Credit: Courtesy of Prof. Andreas Muenchow, University of Delaware

“The Greenland ice sheet as a whole is shrinking, melting and reducing in size as the result of globally changing air and ocean temperatures and associated changes in circulation patterns in both the ocean and atmosphere,” he notes.

Muenchow points out that the air around northern Greenland and Ellesmere Island has warmed by about 0.11 +/- 0.025 degrees Celsius per year since 1987. 

“Northwest Greenland and northeast Canada are warming more than five times faster than the rest of the world,” Muenchow says, “but the observed warming is not proof that the diminishing ice shelf is caused by this, because air temperatures have little effect on this glacier; ocean temperatures do, and our ocean temperature time series are only five to eight years long — too short to establish a robust warming signal.” 

The ocean and sea ice observing array that Muenchow and his research team installed in 2003 with U.S. National Science Foundation support in Nares Strait, the deep channel between Greenland and Canada, has recorded data from 2003 to 2009. 

The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Henry Larsen is scheduled to travel to Nares Strait and Petermann Fjord later this summer to recover moorings placed by UD in 2009. These mooring data, if recovered, will provide scientists with current, temperature, salinity and ice thickness data at better than hourly intervals from 2009 through 2012. The period includes the passage of the 2010 ice island directly over the instruments. 

According to Muenchow, this newest ice island will follow the path of the 2010 ice island, providing a slow-moving floating taxi for polar bears, seals and other marine life until it enters Nares Strait, the deep channel between northern and Canada, where it likely will get broken up. 

“This is definitely déjà vu,” Muenchow says. “The first large pieces of the 2010 calving arrived last summer on the shores of Newfoundland, but there are still many large pieces scattered all along eastern Canada from Lancaster Sound in the high Arctic to Labrador to the south.”

Prior to 2010, the last time such a sizable ice island was born in the region was 50 years ago. In 1962, the Ward Hunt , on the northern coast of Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, calved a 230-square-mile island.

Explore further: NASA satellites calling here you come again, Tropical Storm Dolly

Related Stories

NASA Releases New Image of Massive Greenland Iceberg

Aug 13, 2010

On Aug. 5, 2010, an enormous chunk of ice, about 251 square kilometers (97 square miles) in size, or roughly four times the size of Manhattan, broke off the Petermann Glacier along the northwestern coast of ...

Arctic ice island 'poses no immediate threat'

Aug 12, 2010

The largest ice island in almost 50 years poses no immediate threat as it will take up to two years to drift through the Arctic Ocean, the Canadian who discovered it told AFP.

Recommended for you

Tropical Storm Dolly forms, threatens Mexico

9 hours ago

Tropical Storm Dolly formed off Mexico's northeastern coast on Tuesday and headed toward landfall in Tamaulipas state, threatening to spark floods and mudslides, forecasters said.

Giant garbage patches help redefine ocean boundaries

11 hours ago

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is an area of environmental concern between Hawaii and California where the ocean surface is marred by scattered pieces of plastic, which outweigh plankton in that part of ...

New satellite maps out Napa Valley earthquake

13 hours ago

Scientists have used a new Earth-observation satellite called Sentinel-1A to map the ground movements caused by the earthquake that shook up California's wine-producing Napa Valley on 24 August 2014.

User comments : 68

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2 / 5 (23) Jul 17, 2012
Floating sea ice, eh? Means damn little.

Also, Greenland=2166086 km2. Manhattan=826 km2

Rather like a Blue Whale losing skin cells.

However, it is rather enjoyable contemplating a return of dairy farms to that currently frozen waste land.
seb
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2012
It's not about the ice added to the water here, it's about where the glacier was and what's left.
CapitalismPrevails
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 17, 2012
It's the Day After Tomorrow...
wiyosaya
4.2 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2012
Floating sea ice, eh? Means damn little.

Also, Greenland=2166086 km2. Manhattan=826 km2

Rather like a Blue Whale losing skin cells.

However, it is rather enjoyable contemplating a return of dairy farms to that currently frozen waste land.

Reminds me of a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

You know, the scene where they fight the dark night, and he exclaims "It's just a flesh wound."
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 17, 2012
"the air around northern Greenland and Ellesmere Island has warmed by about 0.11 /- 0.025 degrees Celsius per year since 1987. "

Sure. But lets look at Nunavut, the territory in Canada's north. And lets look further back than 1987.

Using data from Environment Canada, and using their reference stations, the warmest years in Nunavut were (the number is the temperature in Celsius above or below the 1971-2000 average):

2010 4.29
2006 2.97
1931 2.61
1998 2.37
1947 2.10
1930 2.09
1981 1.99
1940 1.87
2003 1.73
2009 1.69
2011 1.63

http://sunshineho...l-nu.png
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
2011 1.63
2010 4.29
2009 1.69
2006 2.97
2003 1.73
1998 2.37
1981 1.99
1947 2.10
1940 1.87
1931 2.61
1930 2.09
Pressure2
3.4 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2012
Take a look at your own link NP, the trend is pretty clear, rising to a high average the last couple of decades.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 17, 2012
Yes, it cooled after the 1930s and then warmed up again. But we don't know how warm it was before the 1930s either.

And a lot of the thermometers are in airports or surrounded by houses leaking heat.
Pressure2
3.4 / 5 (17) Jul 17, 2012
Yes, but 3 of the highest 4 reading were in the last 2 decades with one being in the 30's. That sould tell you not to use a chart that undermines your own claim.

You are correct we do not know what it was before the 30's so why would you think it would be higher? Wishful thinking?
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 17, 2012
Yes, but 3 of the highest 4 reading were in the last 2 decades with one being in the 30's. That sould tell you not to use a chart that undermines your own claim.

You are correct we do not know what it was before the 30's so why would you think it would be higher? Wishful thinking?


1) 2011 was 1C colder than 1931, as it appears 2012 will be. 2010 may have been a peak and then 2011 and 2012 are the downhill part of the peak. It happened after 1931.

2) We don't know, from the EC data, how warm the 1800s or early 1900s were.

But we do know that Greenland stations with old data have records from the 1800s.

Upernavik
Warmest NOV: 1878 , DEC: 1873 , JAN: 1929

etc

http://www.arctic...htc3.pdf
NotParker
2 / 5 (21) Jul 17, 2012
Greenland has been warmer.

http://sunshineho...e-1800s/
Pressure2
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2012
The information below should give you a truer picture of the temperature trend in the US. Notice how recently the two months of record high temperatures occured out of 1400 months. Two out of twelve should open you eyes.

"The average temperature of 51.1°F was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average for March and 0.5°F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months (117+ years) that have passed since the U.S. climate record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012."

http://www.scienc...4021.htm
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
i don't think the ice was 'lost' , i would say it was 'donated' or 'gifted'.
Pressure2
3.4 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2012
Parker below is a 12 month period warmer than 1931. A 12 month peroid is actually a better indicator of a trend than a calendar year. Also the 1930's were a period of record droughts. Dry air heats faster than humid air in any given day with all other things being equal. (I would like to give you 1's also but I have been block from rating anyone.)

"The mainland United States, which was largely recovering Monday from a near-nationwide heat wave, has experienced the warmest 12 months since record-keeping began in 1895, a top government science and weather agency announced Monday."

http://articles.c...eme-heat
Pressure2
3.4 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2012
Parker, here again your link refutes the very claim you are trying to make. You are full of misinformation aren't you?

Look at the chart more closely. 9 of the 20 seasonal temperature records have occured since the year 2000. No wonder the ice cap on Greenland is melting!

Greenland has been warmer.

http://sunshineho...e-1800s/

runrig
3.3 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2012
.....
And a lot of the thermometers are in airports or surrounded by houses leaking heat.


Parky just doesn't get it - he's paid not to of course ( the only explanation for his irrational obtuseness )

"David Whitehouse, science adviser to The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a London-based think tank that has former British finance minister Nigel Lawson for chairman. "Everybody agrees that the temperature has warmed. The people who disagree about temperatures are the BARKING MAD end of the spectrum."

If you concentrated on what may be causing GW rather than persisting with the claim that it isn't happening - you would at least be on sane ground to argue on this site.

You can post all the data you like on regional climate - you know - being warmer back then than now, here rather than there. But actually if you knew ( sorry cared ) about the science you would realise that you are actually proving the point. GW causes extremes.
NotParker
2 / 5 (20) Jul 17, 2012
Pressure2, think how much warmer the urban heat island makes cities, and then ask yourself why so many states warmest months are still in the 1930s.

And a 47 out of 60 of the individual months were warmer a long, long time ago. (And I left out the 80s).

Considering that some of those stations have airports and UHI effects, not one of those months should predate 2000.

"Everybody agrees that the temperature has warmed."

Strangely enough, the truth is that some months are warmer. Many are not.

None of those records should be from before 2000.
runrig
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
Pressure2, think how much warmer the urban heat island makes cities, and then ask yourself why so many states warmest months are still in the 1930s.

And a 47 out of 60 of the individual months were warmer a long, long time ago. (And I left out the 80s).

Considering that some of those stations have airports and UHI effects, not one of those months should predate 2000.

"Everybody agrees that the temperature has warmed."

Strangely enough, the truth is that some months are warmer. Many are not.

None of those records should be from before 2000.


Are you a computer, stuck in a do loop? BARKING MAD.
Pressure2
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
Pressure2, think how much warmer the urban heat island makes cities, and then ask yourself why so many states warmest months are still in the 1930s.

And a 47 out of 60 of the individual months were warmer a long, long time ago. (And I left out the 80s).


Source please on your record high months, I don't buy it.
Now if you are referring to the Greenland temperatures a seasonal average is better indicator than individual months. And they trump.

I have already pointed out to you the 2 reasons for the high temperatures during the 30's. One is the record low humidity. And the other is it is much more likely to set records shortly after record keeping starts. Many of those records were set at lower highs though.

NotParker
2 / 5 (20) Jul 17, 2012
And the other is it is much more likely to set records shortly after record keeping starts. Many of those records were set at lower highs though.



The 1870s records are still the record.

And I was referring to Greenland for 47/60.

For the USA, out of 576 months (48 x 12), 120 were set in this century.

99 were set int he 1930s. 29 were set in the 1800s.

http://sunshineho...edition/

runrig
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
Pressure2, think how much warmer the urban heat island makes cities, and then ask yourself why so many states warmest months are still in the 1930s.

And a 47 out of 60 of the individual months were warmer a long, long time ago. (And I left out the 80s).


Source please on your record high months, I don't buy it.
Now if you are referring to the Greenland temperatures a seasonal average is better indicator than individual months. And they trump.

I have already pointed out to you the 2 reasons for the high temperatures during the 30's. One is the record low humidity. And the other is it is much more likely to set records shortly after record keeping starts. Many of those records were set at lower highs though.



You're wasting your time I'm afraid Pressure2 - may as well try to reason with a the lunatic in the asylum. He thinks it's us that are the madmen .... Or does he, maybe he gets paid "per post"
NotParker
2 / 5 (20) Jul 17, 2012

You're wasting your time I'm afraid Pressure2 - may as well try to reason with a the lunatic in the asylum. He thinks it's us that are the madmen .... Or does he, maybe he gets paid "per post"


What would you know about reasoning?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

There simply was no significant warming that was constrained to the 1930's and no cooling immediately afterward.

As the following graphic illustrates, global temperatures peaked in the 1940's with a reduction in temperatures resulting from increases in sulfate aerosols being emitted into the atmosphere by automobiles and coal fired power plants.

http://www.newsci..._808.jpg

Global temperatures are now much higher than they were in the 1930's, and substantially higher than the 1940's local peak.

"Yes, it cooled after the 1930s and then warmed up again." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 17, 2012
Clearly much more than you. With your publicly stated intent to continue to lie about the earth's temperature and temperature trend.

"What would you know about reasoning?" - ParkerTard

You are mentally diseased ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 17, 2012
ParkerTard's dishonesty is easy to expose.

The following table shows various stations in Greenland and the year in which their maximum temp was reached for each month.

Virtually NONE of the record highs are from the 1930's.

But of course, ParkerTard shows only the ones that are.

http://www.arctic...htc3.pdf

"Greenland has been warmer." - ParkerTard

Parker Tard is mentally diseased, and like every other Conservative I have ever encountered, he is a congenital and perpetual liar. In this case telling a lie of omission.

Pressure2
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
Runrig of course you and VD are right. I think he has been hit in the head with a hockey puck a few to many times. But I just cannot resist exposing his latest post also.

Parker the chart to the link below also indicates that global warming is happening right now in front of your eyes.

3 of the last 6 years and 6 of the last 20 years are the warmest months on record. I would say that is pretty remarkable when the records go back well over 100 years.

So Parker it is strike three, you are out!

http://sunshineho...edition/
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2012
Runrig of course you and VD are right. I think he has been hit in the head with a hockey puck a few to many times. But I just cannot resist exposing his latest post also.

Parker the chart to the link below also indicates that global warming is happening right now in front of your eyes.

3 of the last 6 years and 6 of the last 20 years are the warmest months on record. I would say that is pretty remarkable when the records go back well over 100 years.

So Parker it is strike three, you are out!

http://sunshineho...edition/


Droll.

"how cold are the last 12 months (Jul 2011 to Jun 2012) compared to the warmest month.

For example, October 2011 in Alabama was -13.6F colder than the warmest October in Alabama 1919

October 1919 was 74.0F

October 2011 was 60.4F"

http://sunshineho...e-record
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 17, 2012

3 of the last 6 years and 6 of the last 20 years are the warmest months on record.


120 warmest months out of 576 are from this century.

456 are not. 328 were set more than 50 years. 29 were set over 110 years ago.

99 were set in the 1930s. And are still valid.

And that is the heavily adjusted data where they artificially cooled the past.
Pressure2
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
You really don't get it do you Parker? Averages over the longest period of time and over the greatest area are the most representative of climate. Your cherry picking of months is next to meaningless.

The monthly records over the last 100 plus years from your link are listed below. They are listed at the very bottom of the chart.

"USA Contiguous 48 States 2006 1954 2012 2006 1934 1933 1936 1983 1998 1963 1999 1939"

http://sunshineho...edition/

Strike Four!
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2012
You really don't get it do you Parker? Averages over the longest period of time and over the greatest area are the most representative of climate. Your cherry picking of months is next to meaningless.

The monthly records over the last 100 plus years from your link are listed below. They are listed at the very bottom of the chart.

"USA Contiguous 48 States 2006 1954 2012 2006 1934 1933 1936 1983 1998 1963 1999 1939"

http://sunshineho...edition/

Strike Four!


You don't get it do you?

Is it warmer than the past? Sometimes. Is it always? No way.

Claiming that this year is the warmest in US history when only one month is from 2012, 2 are from 2006 and 4 are from the 1930s.

4 in the 10 years of the 1930s trumps 3 in the 12.5 years of the 20xx.

Pressure2
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
Parker can you pick 6 in the 20's and 30's or the 30's and 40's that can trump the 6 of the 12 monthly records over the last 19 years? If not the 6 recent monthly records trumps your 4 in the 20 and even 30 year period around the 1930's.

The most records over the shortest period of time, 6 in 19 years indicate the trend in climate.

So strike 5 for you and this is the 5th walk for me. Thanks for providing the links that make my points.

NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2012
Parker can you pick 6 in the 20's and 30's or the 30's and 40's that can trump the 6 of the 12 monthly records over the last 19 years? If not the 6 recent monthly records trumps your 4 in the 20 and even 30 year period around the 1930's.

The most records over the shortest period of time, 6 in 19 years indicate the trend in climate.

So strike 5 for you and this is the 5th walk for me. Thanks for providing the links that make my points.



6 in 19 years? You mean 6 in 29 years? 1983 is 29 years ago.

1954 1934 1933 1936 1963 1939

You think 6 in 29 years trumps 6 in 30 years by much?

6 from 49 years ago and older seems more pertinent.

Pressure2
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2012
You are correct on the 29 years, you are also right that 29 does not beat 30 by much.

But there is a more recent 5 months in the last 14 years that trump any 20 year period around the 1930's

Now that is significant when you are dealing with something as slow as climate change!
Pressure2
3.1 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012

6 from 49 years ago would seem petinent, not at all, why? Now there are some factors that would be pertinent but this chart does not give us that information. By how much previous average monthly temperature was beatem would be nice to know. And it also does not provide what the average humidity was for those months.

Both of those are very inportant factors, expecially the average humidity. Dry air like in the dust bowl of the 30's contains less calories of heat than humid air at the same temperature.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2012
Here ParkerTard compares the warmest October on record with a below average October temperature for one of the 5 states that show a cooling trend and then presents these two data points as a meaningful trend.

http://climvis.nc...play3.pl

Two data points do not make a state trend.
A trend from an exceptional state does not make a national trend.
A national trend does not make a global trend.

"For example, October 2011 in Alabama was -13.6F colder than the warmest October in Alabama 1919" - RyggTard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased.
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2012

6 from 49 years ago would seem petinent, not at all, why?


It has been a lot warmer in the past.

11 of the 48 May records were from the 1895 to 1899.

Imagine how warm it was before 1895.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2012
ParkerTard is fixated on the temperature trend from a nation that represents less than 2 percent of the global surface area illustrates the depth of his mental disorder.

His fixation on the 5 states that show a cooling trend over the last 100 years - representing only a tiny fraction of that less than 2 percent, illustrates the depth of his mental disease.

"Claiming that this year is the warmest in US history" - ParkerTard

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 17, 2012
Cherry picking is what ParkerTard is paid to do.

"Your cherry picking of months is next to meaningless." - Pressure

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2012
Translation: 1/5th of the warmest months are from a period that is only 1/10th as long as the section containing 4/5ths of the records.

If the records were evenly distributed then you would expect 1/10th of the records during 1/10th the period.

ParkerTard admits that records are falling at least twice as fast as they would be if temperatures were static and even faster than they would be if they were falling.

In fact it is substantially greater than twice as fast since records are more likely broken in the past then the present.

"120 warmest months out of 576 are from this century." - ParkerTard

Poor Mentally diseased ParkerTard. He can't even figure out that his own argument speaks against his own position.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
Yup. It is a global conspiracy among the worlds scientists to keep Parker Tard looking like a stupid, liar.

"And that is the heavily adjusted data where they artificially cooled the past.' - ParkerTard

The worlds scientists apparently don't have anything better to do with their time.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 17, 2012
Yes. By including those, the temperature trend actually becomes less positive than it is when they are excluded.

"And a lot of the thermometers are in airports or surrounded by houses leaking heat." = ParkerTard

Poor Mentally Diseased ParkerTard. His diseased mind can't figure out that the urban heat island effect is not present in the data used by GISS, NOAA, Hadcrut, Jaxa, or Best or MSU.

Yet all show the same warming.

Howhot
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2012
It has been a lot warmer in the past.
Ignoring the when and where, (especially when, like temps before the dinosaurs), your own CEO of Oil Industry leader Exxon, stated that global warming was real, "We'll just adapt".

http://www.youtub...w1_6We14
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2012

6 from 49 years ago would seem petinent, not at all, why? Now there are some factors that would be pertinent but this chart does not give us that information. By how much previous average monthly temperature was beatem would be nice to know. And it also does not provide what the average humidity was for those months.

Both of those are very inportant factors, expecially the average humidity. Dry air like in the dust bowl of the 30's contains less calories of heat than humid air at the same temperature.


Since 2012 is supposedly drier than the 1930s according to AGW alarmists, what is your point?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2012
The poor, diseased mind of ParkerTard seems completely incapable of distinguishing between global and regional events.

He abuses every sense of scale, both physical and temporal.

"Since 2012 is supposedly drier than the 1930s according to AGW alarmist" - ParkerTard

You commonly see this kind of distorted thinking among the mentally diseased.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2012
AGW cult member: 2012 is drier and hotter than any time in US history

Reality: No. The 1930s were warmer and drier.

AGW cult member: The moist humid air of 2012 holds more heat therefore it is really hotter.

Reality: I thought you said 2012 was really dry?

AGW cult member:

Moron: Tard

AGW cult member:

AGW cult member:
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2012
And again, ParkerTard shows himself incapable of comprehending geographic scale.

The 1930's were only significantly dryer (the dust bowl) in 50% of the land area of the U.S., or less than 1 percent of the global surface area.

The cause of this regional drying is still unclear, due to the lack of global weather data from that era.

Current drought conditions in the U.S. fit the regional pattern expected to result from the observed ongoing increase in global surface temperatures.

"No. The 1930s were warmer and drier." - ParkerTard
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2012
NOAA USA.

Most recent 6 month precipitation:

2012 is only 16th driest. Dry ... yes. Driest? Not even close.

Year Precipitation Rank

1988 11.12 1 1
1934 11.59 2 2
1931 11.89 3 3
1925 12.01 4 4
1910 12.31 5 5
1963 12.82 6 6
1985 12.88 7 7
1966 12.92 8 8
1977 12.99 9 9
1956 13.04 10 10
1918 13.07 11 11
2002 13.07 11 11
1971 13.11 13 13
1911 13.12 14 14
1954 13.15 15 15
2012 13.22 16 16
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2012
Most recent 12 month period. 2011/2012 is only 24th driest.

Year Precipitation Rank
1931 23.73 1 1
1918 23.81 2 2
1925 24.68 3 3
1934 24.72 4 4
1977 24.98 5 5
1954 25.17 6 6
1911 25.18 7 7
1988 25.25 8 8
1955 25.46 9 9
1940 25.90 10 10
1936 26.06 11 11
1963 26.23 12 12
1981 26.25 13 13
1956 26.47 14 14
1964 26.59 15 15
1910 26.67 16 16
2000 26.81 17 17
1930 26.84 18 18
1953 26.92 19 19
1902 26.95 20 20
1917 26.96 21 21
1898 27.04 22 22
1904 27.05 23 23
2012 27.10 24 24
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2012
And again, ParkerTard shows himself incapable of comprehending geographic scale. The 1930's were only significantly dryer (the dust bowl) in 50% of the land area of the U.S., or less than 1 percent of the global surface area. The cause of this regional drying is still unclear, due to the lack of global weather data from that era. Current drought conditions in the U.S. fit the regional pattern expected to result from the observed ongoing increase in global surface temperatures. "No. The 1930s were warmer and drier." - ParkerTard

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2012
Only one state set a record for driest June. Wyoming. Florida set a record for wettest June.

Zero states set a record for driest May and April.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2012
And again, ParkerTard shows himself incapable of comprehending geographic scale. The 1930's were only significantly dryer (the dust bowl) in 50% of the land area of the U.S., or less than 1 percent of the global surface area. The cause of this regional drying is still unclear, due to the lack of global weather data from that era. Current drought conditions in the U.S. fit the regional pattern expected to result from the observed ongoing increase in global surface temperatures.

"Only one state set a record for driest June. Wyoming. " - ParkerTard
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2012

Reality: 2012 is dry, but not even close to a record.

Moron: Tard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2012
And again, ParkerTard shows himself incapable of comprehending geographic scale. The 1930's were only significantly dryer (the dust bowl) in 50% of the land area of the U.S., or less than 1 percent of the global surface area. The cause of this regional drying is still unclear, due to the lack of global weather data from that era.

Current drought conditions in the U.S. fit the regional pattern expected to result from the observed ongoing increase in global surface temperatures.

"2012 is dry, but not even close to a record." - ParkerTard
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2012

Reality: 2012 is dry, but not even close to a record.


Moron: Don't believe your eyes when you look at the following map of drought in July 1934.

http://firsthandw...1934.gif
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2012
And again, ParkerTard shows himself incapable of comprehending geographic scale.

The 1930's were only significantly dryer (the dust bowl) in 50% of the land area of the U.S., or less than 1 percent of the global surface area. The cause of this regional drying is still unclear, due to the lack of global weather data from that era.

Current drought conditions in the U.S. fit the regional pattern expected to result from the observed ongoing increase in global surface temperatures.

"Don't believe your eyes when you look at the following map of (U.S.) drought in July 1934." = ParkerTard
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2012

Reality: 2012 is dry, but not even close to a record.

Moron: Don't believe your eyes when you look at the following map of drought in July 1934.

http://firsthandw...1934.gif

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2012
And again, ParkerTard shows himself incapable of comprehending geographic scale.

The 1930's were only significantly dryer (the dust bowl) in 50% of the land area of the U.S., or less than 1 percent of the global surface area.

The cause of this regional drying is still unclear, due to the lack of global weather data from that era. Current drought conditions in the U.S. fit the regional pattern expected to result from the observed ongoing increase in global surface temperatures.

"Don't believe your eyes when you look at the following map of (U.S.) drought in July 1934." = ParkerTard

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
djr
5 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2012
"Reality: 2012 is dry, but not even close to a record."

I disagree with Parker's characterization that it is not even close to a record. This is an interesting article comparing the dust bowl with today's drought. - http://www.weathe...pageno=1

An interesting quote from the end of the article -

"Now if it's a long hot dry summer, which it looks like it will be, and this persists into the winter and next summer, then you're starting to rival the expanse and duration of the 1930s and 1950s. But it's not there yet"

Thing for me - as a small scale farmer - is understanding how high the stakes are. Take a look at some of the counties of Texas. And when we run the Ogallala dry - Oklahoma where I live is screwed. http://green.blog...-threat/ So surely the prudent thing is pay attention to what is happening - and to ask the experts what we can and should be doing now.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2012
Follow up - yesterday in Oklahoma City - it was 109 degrees F. Broke the record by 2 degrees - set in 1936. Forecast is for continuing heat.

http://www.newson...oma-city
Egleton
1 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2012
Smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2012
The Earth is the center of the Universe.
Estevan57
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 22, 2012
The moon is made of green cheese.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2012
"Reality: 2012 is dry, but not even close to a record."


"if it's a long hot dry summer, which it looks like it will be, and this persists into the winter and next summer, then you're starting to rival the expanse and duration of the 1930s and 1950s.

"But its not there yet"
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2012
Follow up - yesterday in Oklahoma City - it was 109 degrees F. Broke the record by 2 degrees - set in 1936. Forecast is for continuing heat.

http://www.newson...oma-city


Population has tripled since 1936. The urban heat island must be huge.

It is amazing that it took 76 years to break the record.
NotParker
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2012
http://oceanworld...freq.jpg

he relationship between drought in the continental US and the phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The most severe droughts occur when the PDO is in a negative phase, and the AMO is in a positive phase.
From McCabe (2004).

AMO is positive
PDO is negative

http://en.wikiped...tion.svg

http://en.wikiped...:PDO.svg

djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2012
"The urban heat island must be huge."

Here is a good look at the myth of the urban heat island effect. Good video embedded. http://www.skepti...fect.htm
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2012
"The urban heat island must be huge."

Here is a good look at the myth of the urban heat island effect. Good video embedded. http://www.skepti...fect.htm


"Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect."

http://www.nasa.g...awl.html

Mythical?

Ha ha ha ... what a loser.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2012
"Glaciologists often point out that glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate. This paradigm should not be applied to calving glaciers. During most of the calving glacier cycle, the slow advances and relatively rapid retreats are not very sensitive to climate. For example, the calving glaciers that are currently growing and advancing in the face of global
warming, were retreating throughout the little ice age. Calving glaciers become sensitive to climate only late in the advancing phase, when the mass flux out of the accumulation area approaches the mass lost by melting in the ablation area and losses due to calving can no longer be replaced. No reasonable change in climate will change this imbalance and stop the advances of these few glaciers."

So what's all the fuss about?

http://ak.water.u...iers.pdf