Team finds subtropical waters flushing through Greenland fjord

Feb 14, 2010
Recent changes in ocean circulation in the North Atlantic are delivering larger amounts of subtropical waters to the high latitudes. A research team led by Fiamma Straneo, a physical oceanographer at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, found that subtropical waters are reaching Greenland's glaciers, driving melting and likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss. Melting ice also means more fresh water in the ocean, which could flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. (Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

Waters from warmer latitudes -- or subtropical waters -- are reaching Greenland's glaciers, driving melting and likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss, reports a team of researchers led by Fiamma Straneo, a physical oceanographer from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).

"This is the first time we've seen waters this warm in any of the fjords in Greenland," says Straneo. "The subtropical waters are flowing through the fjord very quickly, so they can transport heat and drive melting at the end of the glacier."

Greenland's ice sheet, which is two-miles thick and covers an area about the size of Mexico, has lost mass at an accelerated rate over the last decade. The ice sheet's contribution to sea level rise during that time frame doubled due to increased melting and, to a greater extent, the widespread acceleration of outlet glaciers around Greenland.

While melting due to warming air temperatures is a known event, scientists are just beginning to learn more about the ocean's impact — in particular, the influence of currents — on the ice sheet.

"Among the mechanisms that we suspected might be triggering this acceleration are recent changes in ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which are delivering larger amounts of subtropical waters to the high latitudes," says Straneo. But a lack of observations and measurements from Greenland's glaciers prior to the acceleration made it difficult to confirm.

The research team, which included colleagues from University of Maine, conducted two extensive surveys during July and September of 2008, collecting both ship-based and moored oceanographic data from Sermilik Fjord — a large glacial fjord in East Greenland.

Sermilik Fjord, which is 100 kilometers (approximately 62 miles) long, connects Helheim Glacier with the Irminger Sea. In 2003 alone, Helheim Glacier retreated several kilometers and almost doubled its flow speed.

Deep inside the Sermilik Fjord, researchers found subtropical water as warm as 39 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius). The team also reconstructed seasonal temperatures on the shelf using data collected by 19 hooded seals tagged with satellite-linked temperature depth-recorders. The data revealed that the shelf waters warm from July to December, and that subtropical waters are present on the shelf year round.

"This is the first extensive survey of one of these fjords that shows us how these warm waters circulate and how vigorous the circulation is," says Straneo. "Changes in the large-scale ocean circulation of the North Atlantic are propagating to the glaciers very quickly — not in a matter of years, but a matter of months. It's a very rapid communication."

Straneo adds that the study highlights how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions, which is a connection not currently included in climate models.

"We need more continuous observations to fully understand how they work, and to be able to better predict sea-level rise in the future," says Straneo.

Explore further: Strong quake hits east Indonesia; no tsunami threat

Provided by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

3.9 /5 (30 votes)

Related Stories

Melting glacier worries scientists

Jul 25, 2005

Scientists monitoring a Greenland glacier have found it is moving into the sea three times faster than a decade ago, The Independent reported Monday.

Antarctic ice loss speeds up, nearly matches Greenland loss

Jan 24, 2008

Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by UC Irvine ...

Recommended for you

Methane is leaking from permafrost offshore Siberia

6 hours ago

Yamal Peninsula in Siberia has recently become world famous. Spectacular sinkholes, appeared as out of nowhere in the permafrost of the area, sparking the speculations of significant release of greenhouse ...

New discovery in Arctic is a very old clam

6 hours ago

The rapidly thawing Arctic Ocean may be a new frontier but some of the latest news from there concerns a clam that is believed to date back more than a million years.

Researchers on expedition to solve 'small island problem'

7 hours ago

Researchers from the Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering are starting their new year with an expedition to the island of South Georgia to carry out research into improving weather forecasting. You can follow the team's progress on their blog. ...

User comments : 82

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
2.6 / 5 (19) Feb 14, 2010
If this warming continues it may get warm enough on Greenland that it can be resettled again after a 700 yr hiatus. The new settlers may be able to grow wheat and raise cattle again!

BTW - when Greenland was last settled ca. 1200 yrs ago how much of the glacier coverage had melted and how high had the sea level risen at the peak of that melt??
VINDOC
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 14, 2010
According to University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit temperatures have not risen since 1995. See this link:
http://www.dailym...sed.html
JayK
2.8 / 5 (15) Feb 14, 2010
1998, not 1995. He misspoke, again. The warmest year on record is 1998, since then levels have remained stagnant at .63 deg C over what is considered the level by which no positive feedback loops will cause further warming.

Also, the Daily Mail is probably not the best source for anything remotely scientific.
dachpyarvile
2.6 / 5 (24) Feb 14, 2010
Actually, the "1998 as hottest year" data recently was corrected by NASA. The actual hottest year on record is now 1934, followed very closely by 1998.

Check the data. On the downside, however, various web sites have not as of yet corrected their quotations of the old 1998 data and information. It may be a while before they catch up.

Of course, that 1934 record is not conducive to conclusions regarding the anthropogenic nature claimed these days for global warming. So, the 1998 information is highly unlikely to meet revision any time soon.
brianweymes
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 14, 2010
dachpyarvile, worldwide 1998 is still the warmest year on record, though virtually tied with 2005. 1934 only applies to the US.
Bloodoflamb
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2010
dachpyarvile, worldwide 1998 is still the warmest year on record, though virtually tied with 2005. 1934 only applies to the US.

Aww. You spoiled the fun.
freethinking
2 / 5 (21) Feb 15, 2010
Jayk, your facts are wrong,please dont read the following, but for everyone else

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn

http://www.dailye...w/158214
JayK
Feb 15, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RETT
3.4 / 5 (17) Feb 15, 2010
Yes, and the sea level keeps rising because it doesn't have anything better to do. Keep whistling by that cemetery, because your weak attempts at seizing on every little bobble in the data will soon sentence us all to the mess that is coming as warming takes over. There are many cycles involved, many of which will create temperature variances on the negative side, especially in the better recorded parts of the planet towards the middle. As more records are taken in the frozen zones, it is apparent that change there is even more extreme than had been imagined in the worst case scenarios. And, those frozen zones are what count most. As they melt, temperatures in the temperate and tropical zones may actually go down, and there will be more choruses of global warming fakery. Eventually, there will be no avoiding the changes, and then it will be our children and grandchildren who suffer.
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (22) Feb 15, 2010
More proof AGW has been and still is the largest scientific fraud of the last century. Cloning, cold fusion move over.

For the AGW believers, UFO researchers could use some of your help. Also Noble prize committee is looking to get back Al Gores Noble prize.
GrayMouser
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 15, 2010
dachpyarvile, worldwide 1998 is still the warmest year on record, though virtually tied with 2005. 1934 only applies to the US.

Wrong. The Northwest passage was open, again, during this period so you'll have to say that the northern hemisphere was, at a minimum, affected.
dachpyarvile
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 15, 2010
dachpyarvile, worldwide 1998 is still the warmest year on record, though virtually tied with 2005. 1934 only applies to the US.


You mean that 1934 was only thought to apply only to the US. Various groups have been accused of smoothing out a so-called 'blip' from between 1920 and 1940, a signal that was felt over areas even beyond the US.

In fact, I recently read a paper only a very few years old that presented some relatively new data that shows it happened elsewhere, including in Greenland.

New data is coming in from all over, not all of which has as of yet been published. But, it also points to this missing 'blip' in the temperature signal.

I would not hold on to this idea that it only applied to the US too doggedly because it could well go the way of the IPCC glacial and other claims. What will you say then? :)
dachpyarvile
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2010
Incidentally, readers may wish to download and read the following November 1922 article archived on an official NOAA website detailing the appearance of warming in the Arctic accompanied by disappearance of glaciers, seals and whitefish.

http://docs.lib.n...589a.pdf

It would appear that the warming that led up to the 1934 warmest year also was affecting the Arctic, which, I should not need to mention, is outside the US, and that this was known in climate circles of the period.

One wonders why it is that things like this are not discussed as openly these days by most climate scientists.
dachpyarvile
2.9 / 5 (21) Feb 15, 2010
I quote snippets from the 1922 article linked to above in the event that the NOAA decides to take the article down.
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.

* * * * *

Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81° 29' in ice-free water.

* * * * *

At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

* * * * *

…formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3° Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15°, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.


Interesting. No?
dachpyarvile
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 15, 2010
I also should point out some pertinent information on this as well. Spitzbergen is a common US mispelling (from German) for Spitsbergen. Spitsbergen is located on the European side of the Arctic. I should not need to point out that that also is not part of the US. :)
dachpyarvile
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 15, 2010
Oh, man! I committed a rather egregious error above. I forgot to cite credit to the source of my data.

I would like to thank the NOAA Central Library Data Imaging Project for making this information available.

To search through other articles (somewhat incomplete as of yet, unfortunately, but still of interest) of the same publication, go here:

http://docs.lib.n...iew.html
mary_hinge
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 15, 2010
If this warming continues it may get warm enough on Greenland that it can be resettled again after a 700 yr hiatus....


Err, there is a vibrant and thriving population on Greenland, approx 57,000!

Actually, the "1998 as hottest year" data recently was corrected by NASA. The actual hottest year on record is now 1934, followed very closely by 1998.

False- the correction showed that the 48 continental US states (approx 2% of Earth's surface!) had their warmest year in 1934, not the global mean. I think you will find that 1934 is way down the list of global warmest years.
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (16) Feb 15, 2010
... I think you will find that 1934 is way down the list of global warmest years.


For the moment on websites and other places that have not been updated, yes. See up a few posts. :)
VeIanarris
2.4 / 5 (11) Feb 15, 2010
I see dachpy is still up to the same tricks! I don't usually engage in conversation with trolls but I have to ask, where are the references to the global temperature of 1934 being the warmest recorded?
dachpyarvile
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 15, 2010
I see dachpy is still up to the same tricks! I don't usually engage in conversation with trolls but I have to ask, where are the references to the global temperature of 1934 being the warmest recorded?


What are you talking about? You exhibit all the signs of trollness by rampant sockpuppeteering.

As to what I said about references, see above as to where they are and will be. This is one case where patience is a wonderful virtue. CRU ssmoothed away a so-called 1934 'blip' and eventually that is about to be exposed similarly to how the glacier data was exposed and so forth. Patience and time will reveal all. :)
jonnyboy
1 / 5 (12) Feb 15, 2010
I see dachpy is still up to the same tricks! I don't usually engage in conversation with trolls but I have to ask, where are the references to the global temperature of 1934 being the warmest recorded?


Why don't you make up your own name and come out of hiding you little dirtbag
hareontheriver
2.3 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2010
First time commenter here, but when I read the article I was reminded of a squadron of P 38 lightnings that crash landed on the Greeenland icecap in 1942. More than 50 years later, a successful effort was made to rescue one of the downed airplanes from beneath 250 feet of ice. If the Greenland icecap is melting because of human activity, how does one explain this airplane pulled from beneath 250 ft of ice?

http://p38assn.or...girl.htm

JayK
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2010
@hareontheriver:

why do you think ice has to melt from the top down?
lewando
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 15, 2010
FTA: "The icy mass sitting atop Greenland holds enough water to boost global sea levels by seven metres (23 feet), potentially drowning low-lying coastal cities and deltas around the world"

Reminds me of the Austin Powers movie when the one guard is yelling "Nooooo!" at the slowly oncoming steamroller.

I suspect that if coastal drowning should ever happen, people will be savvy enough to "get out of the way" by then.
mary_hinge
3.7 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2010
More than 50 years later, a successful effort was made to rescue one of the downed airplanes from beneath 250 feet of ice. If the Greenland icecap is melting because of human activity, how does one explain this airplane pulled from beneath 250 ft of ice?

Good question with a number of mechanisms at work. You have conduction (the same way a coin placed on top of ice will appear to bore a hole in the ice), you have the weight of the aeroplane melting the ice (think how ice skater blades work), and you also have additional snow fall on top of this.
mary_hinge
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2010
I am intrigued about this idea of 1934 being the warmest year globally, . All of the references and measurements I have to hand say this is highly unlikely and that this was the warmest year recorded for the contiguous USA. Are there any links to any papers or even blogs that support the global record for 1934?
marjon
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2010
Sea levels rise and fall based upon the amount of water and the rising or sinking land mass.
dachpyarvile
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 16, 2010
I am intrigued about this idea of 1934 being the warmest year globally, . All of the references and measurements I have to hand say this is highly unlikely and that this was the warmest year recorded for the contiguous USA. Are there any links to any papers or even blogs that support the global record for 1934?


I generally do not link to blogs. Are there any papers? Certainly. However, very, very few are available publically as of yet. In addition, there are others yet to come. In such a case, patience is a virtue.

Additionally, see several posts above where I quoted a November 1922 article in MWR which desribes "unheard-of" ice-free Arctic waters all the way up to 81 degrees N latitude and 29 E, as well as vanished glaciers, etc. Things were already getting warmer by that time all the way across the Arctic from the US.

In addition, never mind the Northwest Passage in 1934--the Northeast Passage was open. Should I find things publically available I'll link to them.
dachpyarvile
2.2 / 5 (14) Feb 16, 2010
The interesting thing to note is that reading the 1922 article becomes more interesting when one pretends to forget the 1922 date. The article reads very much like material one reads about the warming Arctic and vanished glaciers and disappearing forms of Arctic wildlife we see in publications today. But, this was written in 1922.

Go ahead and give it a try. Read the snippets I quoted above or actually read the entire article and note the similarity of phraseology to what is being said about the Arctic and glaciers today. Again, I should not need to remind you that Spitsbergen is by no means part of or near the contiguous US. 1934 also has some very interesting reports from all over the Arctic.

I hope to be able to locate some of this material in publically available sources to which I can link for readers here.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 16, 2010
Ok JayK and all you hangers on fear mongers of AGW, even the main steam press is now showing signs that AGW is a fraud. This is from the New York Post of all places.

http://www.nypost...vafbIbGK

Can we all agree that AGW is a hoax so we can move onto real problems facing mankind?
JayK
3.3 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2010
You think the New York Post is an unbiased source as well? Rich Lowry unbiased? Wow.

I've read the full transcript of Phil Jones' interview, did you? Do you understand it or do you just jump to conclusions because you want to?

Has there been significant warming over the last 15 years? No. The warming was 0.12 deg C positive since 1995. Was there significant cooling over the last 15 years? No, there was 0.12 deg C negative change in the global temperature over the last 15 years. (all of these are ONLY land based CRU measurements, btw).

Is this statistically significant given massive amounts of proxy data that show that the rate of warming over a global average was much higher than anything seen before? No.
dachpyarvile
2.7 / 5 (15) Feb 16, 2010
Here is something pertinent to the Physorg article above. It is a paper published in 2006.

We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.


Chylek et al., 2006, "Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005"

http://www.agu.or...10.shtml

Snippets from the article itself can be found here if the reader is unable to purchase access to the full article:

http://meteo.lcd....ing.html

It is a curious thing to see that the years 1920-1930 warmed 50% more quickly than 1995-2005 in Greenland, making current warming there not so 'unprecedented.'
dachpyarvile
2.4 / 5 (15) Feb 16, 2010
You think the New York Post is an unbiased source as well? Rich Lowry unbiased? Wow ...


IF it were an article by itself, I might be inclined to take it with a grain or two of salt. But, it is not. It is more a repeat of news articles I have seen elsewhere in other countries prior to publication in the US.

I am pleased that Professor Jones has gone on record as stating that the present warming has not been statistically significant. That is indeed what the full, unvarnished raw data evidence shows before being smoothed by CRU and others.

I also feel for him. What he described of his office and vast array of papers and other items pretty well matches the description of my office! I certainly can see how he lost the data he lost. I have found I have done similar things so I cannot really judge him too harshly.

Reminds me I have a New Year's resolution to clean up the old office to keep. :)
JayK
2.3 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2010
Land based temperature measurements have shown a plateau on the temperatures since ~2000. No one has said anything much different, despite everyone crowing about this "revelation" it is nothing of the sort.

The length of time is what is insignificant. But you can keep trying to make it seem significant enough to kill the science of global warming, but denialists frustration when this makes no difference will be very satisfying.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2010
JayK what would it take to prove to you AGW doesnt exist?
JayK
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2010
JayK what would it take to prove to you AGW doesnt exist?


Actual scientific acknowledgement from the experts, not from a bunch of amateurs that think the free-market is a gift from a beneficial god.
JayK
2.8 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2010
1) Prove that the greenhouse effect of global warming gases is inconsequential. Denialists make this claim, but haven't proven it.

2) Find a source for the global warming trend (~0.2 deg C per decade) that has occurred since the beginning of the industrial age and that the causes of the previous warming are also responsible for the current decade long plateau.

For those that want the source of Prof. Phil Jones' interview without the right-wing blather:
http://news.bbc.c...1670.stm
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2010
For me to believe in AGW all you would need to do is show me 1. the world temp is rising, 2. CO2 is the cause of the temperature rising.

All of us agree the world temp has not risen the last 15 years. Since the temp has not risen, CO2 cant be the cause of AGW, because CO2 levels have risen, but there hasnt been any increase in temperatures.

You believe in AGW because I cant prove that CO2 wont raise temperatures, even though temps havent risen while CO2 levels have increased.

I can quit trying to convince you that there is no AGW because your religion wont allow you to think anything different than there is AGW. Lying scientists, fraud, bad models, scientific proof that your position is false wont convince you.
JayK
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2010
So lets try to find common ground. Did the ground based global temperature raise by somewhere between .5 and .7 deg C since the beginning of the industrial age?
mary_hinge
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2010
Maybe a more pertinent question is why hasn't the globe cooled over the last decade instead of being the warmest decade recorded (2000-2009 was warmer than 1990-1999 which was warmer than 1980-1989). The last decade showed massive ice loss (this must have cooled the oceans (think ice cubes in your favourite cocktail!); the latter part of the decade had a prolonged minimum, only now are we coming out of it; the PDO has been negative for the latter half of the last decade, there was a strong La Nina and extended La Nina conditions at the end of the decade, probably enhanced by the -ive PDO; and recently we have discovered strospheric water vapour should also have resulted in cooler temperatures.
There should have been a pronounced and statistically significant drop in global temperatures. There wasn't and the last few months have been noteworthy for their record breaking warmth.
mary_hinge
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2010
To add:- The current El Nino is mild compared to the 1998 event (tropical temperatures are cooler than during that event so far (the Indian Ocean is currently warmer so the Pacific event is actually even less than the 0.5C would suggest) http://www.osdpd....2010.gif
Compare to February 1998- http://www.osdpd....1998.gif
The UAH temperatures are here: http://vortex.nss...hmam_5.2
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2010
JayK,
Based on the horrible science did the temp raise between .5 and .7? Thats open to debate. We've been told for years that temps are going up, but only in the last year or two have scientist admitted that temps have not gone up the last 15 years. If they cant get the last 15 years straight, my assumption is that there might not even have been a rise outside of normal fluctuations before.

However IF the temp did rise, is it outside of normal fluctuation? Based on all the evidence it is within normal range.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (11) Feb 16, 2010
1998, not 1995. He misspoke, again. The warmest year on record is 1998

JayK, sorry to go back a good amount of posts on this subject but you stated the above, and then posted the transcript.
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Mr. Jones seems quite certain about his 1995 statement.
JayK
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2010
So instead of saying "yes" or "no" you waffled and played a game with the question, batting it around like a cat. Cute.

Never mind, I tried to engage you, that was my mistake. You can believe you have some sort of "science" and that all of these nitpicking little issues somehow debunks the broader science of climate change, but the fact is that you have no facts, you have nothing other than emotional feelings that say that global warming hasn't and isn't happening, so you'll stick your fingers in your ears and sing.

I hope it's a good song, cuz you'll be humming it for a long long time. The science isn't going away, articles and journals will still have an abundance of entries that show global warming and its effects, while the number of entries that show the science is wrong will be limited to blogs that say that snowfall is an indication that global warming is false.
JayK
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 16, 2010
Mr. Jones seems quite certain about his 1995 statement.


Yes, you caught me. I went back and read through his statements again, and he qualifies his claim as 1995-2010 shows a statistically negligible amount of warming at .12 deg C, while when you shorten the sample period to 2002-2010 you can show another statistically insignificant .12 deg C cooling.

The way that the Daily Fail wrote it was misleading and the only way to get the full understanding of his quote was to read the full transcript.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.6 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2010
The way that the Daily Fail wrote it was misleading and the only way to get the full understanding of his quote was to read the full transcript.
Not just the daily fail. It appears media on both sides of the political coin are again trying to overly politicize Mr. Jones commentary. Regardless of what we determine going forward, I'm sure we can all agree that the media has royally screwed up the processes of science.
JayK
3.1 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2010
Eh, when I wrote my response the Daily Fail was the only website that had covered it. The rest of the coverage so far has been pretty lame.

I actually think the BBC did a pretty horrible job of question selection. They seemed use questions that would badger Jones. The media failure only started there and has continued. Jones was ill advised to do that interview at all.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2010
Well one can see why the BBC treated Jones as they did. The majority of the public couldn't grasp an in depth conversation, and unfortunately, as media is, they needed to keep enough people tuned in. The wave of anti Global warming rhetoric in Europe is currently unbelievable. Some of my associates are saying they can't get some of their neutral research published because it doesn't come to a conclusion on climate change and merely provides data.

You'd think the one thing we'd all want is more neutral data.
JayK
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2010
Providing data isn't the job of a publication journal, though. The whole idea behind a hypothesis is to provide the setup for a conclusion, whether the hypothesis is right or wrong. Data is usually a byproduct of research.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2010
But in order to determine whether the hypothesis is right or wrong you require datasets and the methods used to obtain those datasets.

Typically researchers will publish their collection methods, especially in an immature field, so that other can determine standards and improve methodology. There are a fair many journals designed specifically around observation methodology and equipment calibration technique.

And yes, they are very boring.
JayK
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2010
I'm not sure that I understand, then, what your complaint might be about journals not accepting neutral data. If an article makes a testable hypothesis and then provides the "dataset and the methods used to obtain those datasets" then it should be acceptable. From what you described above, the only thing your associates have done is collect data without a hypothesis to go along with it. That wouldn't be an acceptable article. Maybe I've misunderstood your description of the situation, though.

Observational technology and equipment calibration technique articles also have hypothesis and conclusions.

For another researcher to get the data and methodologies the authors will provide full documentation upon a justifiable request.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (14) Feb 16, 2010
Did the temperatures go up after the beginning of the industrial age? Certainly. Of course, it should be expected that temperatures should go up after the LITTLE ICE AGE.

But, we still have not reached the temps of the MWP, RWP, or of the periods before that.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2010
For another researcher to get the data and methodologies the authors will provide full documentation upon a justifiable request.
You'd hope. Unfortunately that typically isn't the case.

A lot of scientists are playing team sports. "If you're not on my team's side, I'm not sharing my research."

Maybe I've misunderstood your description of the situation, though.
Or my description is lacking.
All of the papers have hypotheses and are primarily in regards to how to properly model and observe chaotic systems. Data normalization (smoothing) and so forth.
dachpyarvile
2.2 / 5 (12) Feb 16, 2010
Vostok and GISP2 both tell the same story--from opposite poles of the globe. Previous periods in the climate data were warmer than currently.

Relating to the subtropical waters mentioned above, this is not the first time that this has been seen, except perhaps in this specific area.

A similar phenomenon was noted in 1922 in another area of the Arctic closer to Europe.
JayK
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2010
Skeptic,

The journals I work from appear to be busier than normal with acceptance rates actually increasing, if anything. Of course, that's just a personal observation. I would imagine that the controversy surrounding climate science journals might make the review process much more difficult and finding peers to do the review itself might be nigh impossible. I'd imagine no one wants to touch peer-review in climate science with a 10 foot insulated pole right now. It is climate-science journals where they are trying to publish, right?
JayK
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2010
Why did the article title and contents change suddenly?
freethinking
2 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2010
JayK we finally agree..... why did the article and contents change. Its a AGW conspiracy ;)
JayK
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2010
The link to this article used to be:

"Greenland ice loss driven by warming seas: study"

And the opening paragraph was

"Arctic Ocean off the coast of Greenland. Greenland's continent-sized icesheet is being significantly eroded by winds and currents that drive warmer water into fjords, where it carves out the base of coastal glaciers, according to studies released Sunday"

That article is now gone completely, replaced by this one.
dachpyarvile
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2010
Straneo adds that the study highlights how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions, which is a connection not currently included in climate models.


Excellent! I am pleased that this tacit admission was made regarding the fact that the models are deficient and need improvement. Perhaps with more articles like this one we may well see more of a drive to improve before explicit reliance on them.
mrlewish
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 16, 2010
To the denialist every time winter comes is proof that global warming is false. "it got cold it must be wrong!"

Every time the sun goes down I become a sunrise denialist.
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (13) Feb 16, 2010
No, actually I am a skeptic because each year has gotten cooler over the last few years. This is not just in the winter season. I also am a skeptic because the 'A' in AGW just has not been adding up as I have looked over the data.

The globe has warmed but that warming has been "statistically insignificant," to quote climate scientist, Dr. Phil Jones. If the AGW crowd had been right it should have warmed much more significantly than it has.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2010
It is climate-science journals where they are trying to publish, right?

Nope, for the most part it's metrology, (not meteorology but the study of measurement and precision).

From the "New" Article:
which could flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor.

The Ocean Conveyor was disproved recently. No such construct exists.
JayK
3.1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2010
The only thing I saw proven was that the Ocean Conveyor doesn't have as great affect on Britain's temperature as was believed. I didn't see that the massive currents that sweep out of the north and along the European coasts suddenly doesn't exist. Have a link?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2010
I didn't see that the massive currents that sweep out of the north and along the European coasts suddenly doesn't exist. Have a link?

I'm not disputing the known surface and subsurface currents, however, the THC has been shown to be a false model, there was an article on here a month or two ago stating that the newer oceanic floor sensors did not find the predicted Cold water conveyor.

http://www.physor...846.html
JayK
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2010
Interesting observation, and considering that both of the articles are from Woods Hole, I would question more the writer of this article than anything else.

As for the THC being a false model? I'd beware making such a black and white statement. It isn't as simple as was believed, and may not account for the majority of European warmth, as was believed, but it still exists, the oceanographers are just trying to fully understand it with the recent revelations.

The theories of a rapid drop of salinity of the northern Atlantic are still valid, as they have some pretty good data that indicates previous shutdowns (geologic time frame) were due to rapid desalinization when fresh waters flooded the Atlantic.
dachpyarvile
2.2 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2010
JayK et al.,

The rapid desalinization was caused by rapidly occurring catastrophic events. (Think 'Lake Agassiz' for example). There is nothing in place at the moment that could cause such a catastrophic event again in the near future, not even GIS melting.
CarolinaScotsman
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 17, 2010
So lets try to find common ground. Did the ground based global temperature raise by somewhere between .5 and .7 deg C since the beginning of the industrial age?


Is that the beginning of the industrial age that
coinsides with the end of the Little Ice Age? Gee, temeratures going up after a cold spell, time for panic.
JayK
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2010
Yes, CarolinaScotsman, that's right, and it is amazing that only you and a handful of other great scientific minds actually can simplify the entire debate down to that one "fact" about global climate change.

Let me know when you'll be publishing that amazing find that you made, I'm sure every journal will be clamoring to be the first to publish it.
CarolinaScotsman
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2010
Yes, CarolinaScotsman, that's right, and it is amazing that only you and a handful of other great scientific minds actually can simplify the entire debate down to that one "fact" about global climate change.


And it's amazing to me how many arrogant idiots fail to see plain facts.
lewando
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2010
Scientists have lost control as a result of politicization by the UN, various governments, and a number of vocal scientists who make idiotic statements such as “the science is settled”. In our “question authority” culture, climatologists have doomed their art to the domain of “tabloid science”. Climatologists must pine for the days when they were only considered the pejorative: “soft science”.

Any “action” to be taken by a government must now first be sold to the people (or not, if not a democracy). People respond to themes and ideas, not published ephemera in climate journals. The big idea/theme that CS pointed out (and it is a reasonable theme IMHO): is there really a problem that needs solving? Most folks do not see our climate as seriously defective and those who do look at numbers are not shocked especially after hearing the phrase “normal variation”. If climate enthusiasts want to counter big ideas/themes with snooty comments, they do so at the peril of their cause.
dachpyarvile
2.6 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2010
There is one fact that all can agree upon and that there is global climate change. There always has been and always will be so long as the driving forces of climate change exist. These driving forces have existed millions of years before man and will exist millions of year from now. Yes, climate change is real.

The open question is, is man really responsible for any of it today? The jury remains out on that matter. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something.
fixer
5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2010
Yup, I'm trying to sell my house near the beach.
It's 34ft above sea level so no problems at all.
Of course, not all the roads leading to the house and town are so high, but that's someone elses problem and couldn't possibly affect me, now could it?
peteone1
Feb 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
1Very_Old_Guy
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2010
Hey wait guys. I know about a guy who has a lot of "inside information" about this stuff. He's a really sharp guy.....he invented the internet. I'm sure he could straighten this whole mess out.
croghan27
not rated yet Feb 21, 2010

Wrong. The Northwest passage was open, again, during this period so you'll have to say that the northern hemisphere was, at a minimum, affected.


The NW Passage was open, you say .... odd it is then that the first west to east transit of the NW Passage was by the RCMP schooner St. Roch.

"The RCMP schooner St. Roch allowed the first effective patrol of Canada's Arctic territory. It was the first vessel to navigate the Northwest Passage from west to east ( 1940- 1942), also the first to navigate the Passage in one season ( 1944), and also the first to circumnavigate North America ( 1950)." http://www.econom...lice.htm

The next was the Manhattan 1969. The conclusion of its' passage was that: "the Northwest Passage may never be feasible for commercial ocean traffic,"

http://www.gi.ala.../ASF6/63
croghan27
not rated yet Feb 21, 2010
As it is, the NW Passage is rather superfluous anyway. The North East Passage, by northern Russia is much more friendly to ships.

http://www.gwynne...s/Gwynne Dyer article_ The Northern Passages.txt
dachpyarvile
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2010
Interesting. When I click your link I get:

Woops - Error 404

We're sorry...
You have requested a file that does not exist.

(In the future, we hope to have a system for reporting internal "dead links.")

You can either use your back arrow, or go to these hosted sites:

www.gi.alaska.edu | www.iarc.uaf.edu | gisp.gi.alaska.edu | www.education-alive.com


By the way, you are wrong. The first recorded captain to navigate the Northwest Passage from Greenland to Alaska successfully was Roald Amundsen, in 1906 (if I recall correctly).
dachpyarvile
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2010
Your other link gives:

Not Found
The requested document was not found on this server.

--------------------------------

Web Server at gwynnedyer.com
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2010
It would appear that Physorg.com strips out crucial information in some kinds of links. This is unfortunate.

Nonetheless, I dispute the article which you cite. Take a close look at the Arctic ice data. The Northeast Passage is not really actually 'open,' per se, but icebreakers still are used to traverse this passage at least part of the way.

Oh, and when you do check the ice data, make sure you check the corrected data. The sensor on the satellite malfunctioned and showed much less ice than there really was present at the time.
joefarah
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2010
If you "support" GW, you're simply not a scientist and should not be posting on this site without acknowledging that. Don't quote me quotes, quote me statistically relevant and pervasive data. Most GW advocates are either on the take, or put more faith in the earth than in people, or God, for that matter.
yyz
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2010
Going at it like matter and antimatter! And 'antimatter's' winning. Amazing.
yyz
Feb 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2010
Ah, the ever incredibly anti-intellecual joefarah busts out some more noise, with absolutely no credibility anywhere to back him up. Instead of showing any supporting evidence in any AGW thread on PhysOrg, he resorts instead to goalpost shifting, religious inferences and vague accusations of fraud without any proof.

And now he wants anyone that says AGW is an occurring phenomenon to stop posting here. Isn't that sweet?
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2010
dachpyarvile is clearly the master of the 'Gish Gallop'.


Hardly. That is the job of Al Gore and the IPCC. :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2010
By the way, I believe that there has been GW. I just have not seen hard enough evidence to call it AGW.

In fact, I believe that the earth was much warmer in the ancient past and that there are alternating glacial and warming periods. I also believe that it is possible for temperatures to go up. In fact, in a billion years from now (some say as little as a million) the Sun will ramp up its fusion and begin evaporating the oceans into space. Climate change is unavoidable. It has happened over millions of years and will continue to do so.

Give me strong, incontrovertable evidence that man is responsible and I will look it over and make a decision. For now, I remain a skeptic. And, after what I have come across and seen with my own eyes it is likely I will remain a skeptic for some time.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.