Study shows how meltwater on Greenland's ice sheet contribute to rising sea levels

January 12, 2015, University of California, Los Angeles
Credit: University of California, Los Angeles

As the largest single chunk of melting snow and ice in the world, the massive ice sheet that covers about 80 percent of Greenland is recognized as the biggest potential contributor to rising sea levels due to glacial meltwater.

Until now, however, scientists' attention has mostly focused on the ice sheet's aquamarine lakes—bodies of meltwater that tend to abruptly drain—and on monster chunks of ice that slide into the ocean to become icebergs.

But a new UCLA-led study reveals a vast network of little-understood rivers and streams flowing on top of the ice sheet that could be responsible for at least as much, if not more, sea-level rise as the other two sources combined.

When snow and ice thaw during the summer, these waterways form an intricate drainage system that captures virtually all surface runoff and is capable of flushing its entire volume in less than two days, the team found.

"It's the world's biggest water park, with magnificent and beautiful—but deadly—rushing blue rivers cutting canyons into the ice," said Laurence C. Smith, the study's lead author and the chair of UCLA's geography department.

The research, published in the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, highlights the fragility of the ice sheet as well as the amount of havoc it could create as global warming progresses.

With funding from NASA's Cryospheric Sciences program, 11 researchers—three of them UCLA graduate students—spent six days during July 2012, gathering measurements in an environment so hostile and dangerous that no such effort had ever been attempted.

Because the ice sheet was so unsteady and the amount of territory they covered was so great, researchers moved around by helicopter. To map the network and compute the rivers' flow rates, they used military-grade satellite imagery, buoys outfitted with GPS technology and a drone boat specially designed for the project by a Jet Propulsion Laboratory engineer who also worked on the Mars Rover.

The study happened to coincide with a massive and extremely unusual melt. On only one other occasion in the past 700 years—in 1889—has the ice sheet thawed as much as it did in 2012.

"It was a real preview of just how quickly that ice sheet can melt and the meltwater can escape," Smith said.

The team was particularly interested in learning how much of the meltwater would be retained, how much of it moved to the ocean, and how quickly and through what means it did so.

"The question was whether the ice sheet acts like a sponge or like Swiss cheese," Smith said.

Credit: University of California, Los Angeles

Ultimately, the researchers determined the answer to be a little bit of both. At least on top of its surface, the sheet was like Swiss cheese: All of the 523 actively flowing streams and rivers across a 2,000-square-mile area of the ice sheet drained into moulins, or sink holes, that promptly carried meltwater under the ice sheet and into the ocean.

Meanwhile, a modest "sponge" effect occurred somewhere below the surface—either inside or, more likely, at the base of the ice sheet. Within this area, the researchers determined, the ice sheet drained at a rate of 55,000 to 61,000 cubic feet per second, a rate more than double the average flow of the Colorado River, produced from less than one-tenth of its watershed area.

The group also specifically examined the Isortoq River, which exits the ice sheet on land and drains about one-fifth of the mapped networks. Its output is critical because it's a key element of the Modele Atmospherique Regional, or MAR, a climate model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop worldwide responses to global warming. The researchers found that the Isortoq's amount of discharge was more than 25 percent less than the model predicted.

"There's a lot of water coming out of the ice sheet but a certain amount can't be accounted for," said study co-author Vena Chu, a UCLA doctoral candidate in geography.

The discrepancy suggests that at least some of the meltwater is being captured in a subterranean manner that has yet to be accounted for, the researchers said.

"The model automatically assumes that the meltwater is going directly to the ocean," said Marco Tedesco, a co-author and head of City College of New York's Cryospheric Processes Laboratory, which operates MAR. "Some can get retained under the ice. More research is definitely needed."

Still, researchers found that the flow in the Isortoq River carried from the ice sheet to the ocean at an average flow rate of 23,000 to 46,000 feet per second—a massive flow rate that is all the more awe-inspiring because the Isortoq is but one of at least 100 large terrestrial rivers connecting the melting Greenland to the world's oceans.

The new research will allow scholars to refine existing climate models, which appear to modestly overestimate the direct contribution from runoff to rising sea level, said Tedesco, an associate professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at CCNY.

"If we can get better estimates, then we can have better projections for the extent and the impact of ," he said. "Greenland is really the big player for sea level rise in the future, so improving climate models is extremely crucial."

Explore further: Evolving plumbing system beneath Greenland slows ice sheet as summer progresses

More information: Efficient meltwater drainage through supraglacial streams and rivers on the southwest Greenland ice sheet, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1413024112

Related Stories

Giant channels discovered beneath Antarctic ice shelf

October 6, 2013

Scientists have discovered huge ice channels beneath a floating ice shelf in Antarctica. At 250 metres high, the channels are almost as tall as the Eiffel tower and stretch hundreds of kilometres along the ice shelf. The ...

The threat of global sea level rise

September 30, 2014

Changes taking place in the oceans around Antarctica could result in an abrupt rise in global sea level, according to a Victoria University of Wellington led study.

Recommended for you

Death near the shoreline, not life on land

December 13, 2018

Our understanding of when the very first animals started living on land is helped by identifying trace fossils—the tracks and trails left by ancient animals—in sedimentary rocks that were deposited on the continents.

The long dry: global water supplies are shrinking

December 13, 2018

A global study has found a paradox: our water supplies are shrinking at the same time as climate change is generating more intense rain. And the culprit is the drying of soils, say researchers, pointing to a world where drought-like ...

New climate model to be built from the ground up

December 13, 2018

Facing the certainty of a changing climate coupled with the uncertainty that remains in predictions of how it will change, scientists and engineers from across the country are teaming up to build a new type of climate model ...

56 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Water_Prophet
2.9 / 5 (12) Jan 12, 2015
One can use this information to make climate predictions as well. It's a very good article.
Shootist
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 12, 2015
as Greenland's ice melts, Greenland become lighter, sea levels (in Greenland) go down.

Carry on.

Dyson still says the polar bears will be fine. Dyson is still smarter than any of you as well.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (22) Jan 12, 2015
as Greenland's ice melts, Greenland become lighter, sea levels (in Greenland) go down.

Carry on.

Dyson still says the polar bears will be fine. Dyson is still smarter than any of you as well.


Nothing like adding stupidity on top of stupidity.
Water_Prophet
4.8 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2015
Shootist, You're quoting out of context. Check it out, you're embarrassing him.
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2015
Great Research. However,

" The new research will allow scholars to refine existing climate models, which appear to modestly overestimate the direct contribution from runoff to rising sea level

Since when do we consider a 25% error "Modest"?


Really interesting article, I agree. However, I wouldn't make too much of the 25% error. The amount of the run-off water was underestimated by over 25% which tends to fit with the conservative assumptions taken when modeling sea level rise. From the article;
The researchers found that the Isortoq's amount of discharge was more than 25 percent less than the model predicted.
In otherwords, the discharge was greater than 25% than used by computer models. Does this mean that we can predict massive sea level rise from global warming by 2050? We certainly may start seeing the beginning of a new map for planet earth! That is for certain. We really need to tame the athropogenic CO2 devil.
gkam
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2015
I sure hope some of the deniers have waterfront property. You can get them a snorkel for Christmas.
animah
5 / 5 (11) Jan 12, 2015
as Greenland's ice melts, Greenland become lighter, sea levels (in Greenland) go down.

And melting an ice cube in a glass of water makes its water level go down LOL.

U has teh siencez soorted!
RealityCheck
4.6 / 5 (19) Jan 12, 2015
Shootist. WTF???
as Greenland's ice melts, Greenland become lighter, sea levels (in Greenland) go down. Carry on. Dyson still says the polar bears will be fine. Dyson is still smarter than any of you as well.
Don't you realize that the Greenland Plate will REBOUND upwards when load removed? So LOCALLY there it is more LAND rising, not sea level lowering. And if Greenland Plate portion forming surrounding SEABED floor RISES, that will displace MORE water in the local seawater column.

See? Combination of extra water flowing into seawater column and displaced existing water in that column, will produce overall globally distributed NET RISE in sea levels relative to present overall average coastal highwater level marks.

Think more deeply, carefully before kneejerking to facile incomplete conclusions. And please drop that "Freeman Dyson" inanity. Less sea ice, Polar Bears STARVE as they can't hunt on sea ice where they can ambush seals at 'breathing holes'. OK? Think.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2015
as Greenland's ice melts, Greenland become lighter, sea levels (in Greenland) go down.

Carry on.

Dyson still says the polar bears will be fine. Dyson is still smarter than any of you as well.

I guess that means ALL land masses "float" on water then, right?
You must be going for the joke, because I don't think ANYONE can be that stupid all on their own...
ubavontuba
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2015
as Greenland's ice melts, Greenland become lighter, sea levels (in Greenland) go down.

Carry on.

Dyson still says the polar bears will be fine. Dyson is still smarter than any of you as well.

I guess that means ALL land masses "float" on water then, right?
You must be going for the joke, because I don't think ANYONE can be that stupid all on their own...
It looks to me like he is referring to "post-glacial rebound."

http://en.wikiped...irect=no

This is the rebounding (or rising) of the land after the ice load is removed.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2015
I guess that means ALL land masses "float" on water then, right?
You must be going for the joke, because I don't think ANYONE can be that stupid all on their own...
It looks to me like he is referring to "post-glacial rebound."

http://en.wikiped...irect=no

This is the rebounding (or rising) of the land after the ice load is removed.


Thank you for that reference, Uba. An interesting read.
I stand corrected and withdraw the snide remark.

But then... you have to wonder, if that land is rising, does additional water weight in ocean/water basins make THAT part of a plate drop lower?
EnricM
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2015
Great Research. However,

" The new research will allow scholars to refine existing climate models, which appear to modestly overestimate the direct contribution from runoff to rising sea level

Since when do we consider a 25% error "Modest"?


Sources please?
EnricM
4.9 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2015
as Greenland's ice melts, Greenland become lighter, sea levels (in Greenland) go down.

Carry on.

Dyson still says the polar bears will be fine. Dyson is still smarter than any of you as well.


Dyson is biologist? didn't knew that.
ReduceGHGs
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2015
Meanwhile, as Greenland and Arctic ice disappear, too many members of Congress deny that climate change is a problem. Join the efforts to confront them, and if they won't listen to reason, have them replaced in the next election. Our future generations are worth the effort.
ExhaustingHabitability(dot)org
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2015
ubavontuba got it - yippee, there is still hope !
It looks to me like he is referring to "post-glacial rebound."
http://en.wikiped...irect=no
This is the rebounding (or rising) of the land after the ice load is removed
You actually got this correct and U get a 5 but, why stop there, tell me please why is so MUCH ice melting and especially so when you become aware of the "Latent Heat of Fusion" which clearly shows, with >100yrs of evidence never refuted that re Melting Ice; Absorbs:-

1.~150 TIMES > ice (as partial insulator)
2.~75 TIMES > water

Question arises, how much will rising displace water ie in relation to continents shape, may only rise 1m (at points within the continent) but, shift coastline out so it effectively increase regional displacement MORE !

Greenland:-
http://sciencenor...-out-sea
http://www.livesc...lts.html

Complexity ubavontuba
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2015
Interesting article. The biggest part of the article for me is that there appears to be a large reservoir of melt water being stored somewhere. If this 'lake' were to break out of the glaciers, the consequences of a huge influx of cold fresh water in the Atlantic would be dramatic.

A possible explanation for the recent studies of the AMOC variability in short time spans, also a possible explanation for the drastic global temperature drops at the end of the interglacial periods.
RealityCheck
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2015
Whyde. Before I go, briefly...
But then... you have to wonder, if that land is rising, does additional water weight in ocean/water basins make THAT part of a plate drop lower?
The increased weight of meltwater entering the seawater column will be widely distributed over the global ocean floor, raising the oceanic water levels by only meters. The weight issue for local plates is only a problem when it is concentrated locally at great height in much smaller area (ie, vertical miles of ice buildup on Greenland LAND surface). Cheers.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2015
Whyde. Before I go, briefly...
But then... you have to wonder, if that land is rising, does additional water weight in ocean/water basins make THAT part of a plate drop lower?
The increased weight of meltwater entering the seawater column will be widely distributed over the global ocean floor, raising the oceanic water levels by only meters. The weight issue for local plates is only a problem when it is concentrated locally at great height in much smaller area (ie, vertical miles of ice buildup on Greenland LAND surface). Cheers.

Good response with no extra bullshit attached. Thanks.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2015
The weight issue for local plates is only a problem when it is concentrated locally at great height in much smaller area (ie, vertical miles of ice buildup on Greenland LAND surface).

This prompted me to look up a map of tectonic plates. Greenland is on the edge of the much larger North American plate. Presuming you are right about "local plate" dynamics, it actually means the weight would lift from the side of that whole plate. Allowing for some flex in a plate, it still means the North Atlantic and primarily Iceland, is in for some earthquake and maybe even heavy volcanic activity, inasmuch as Greenland is located not far from that major subduction zone. Hmmm...
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2015
And...
allowing for smaller, shallower plates that make up the larger plate, North eastern Canada isn't gonna do much better... and how far west will the domino effect allow it to travel? Not even to mention the ensuing tsunamis...
Fasten your seatbelts folks, it's gonna get rough...

Looking on the bright side, tho - all that volcanic activity will drastically reduce the temperature...

And RC,
I'd suggest you get the TOE out before it doesn't matter... (a little motivation for ya...)
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2015
tell me please why is so MUCH ice melting
The ice is never stable. It is either in a melt cycle (spring/summer), or a freezing cycle (fall/winter). Currently, global sea ice area is above the mean:

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

But I'm confident it will waver below the mean soon, as it normally does.

It is true that northern sea ice area has generally declined over previous highs, and southern sea ice area has increased, but we really don't know what the long term average for either pole is, as our measurements don't go back very far. Heck, Antarctica wasn't even discovered until the 1820's, and wasn't even mapped until the 1900's. We didn't even know it wasn't split in two until the late 1940's.

http://en.wikiped...tarctica

ubavontuba
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2015
In regards to Greenland's ice melt, is it possible there is an outlet under the ice to the Arctic sea?

Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2015
ubavontuba observed
..ice is never stable. It is either in a melt cycle (spring/summer), or a freezing cycle (fall/winter)
Indeed, as U can see & understand specific heat of ice & the difference in temps across seasons U can assess how much energy is cycled, evidence shows ice mass overall is reducing hence rise of greenland some billions of tonnes more loss than precipitation each year - dramatic !

ubavontuba claimed
Currently, global sea ice area is above the mean
The link you post clearly shows the opposite, if you have numerical analysis & evidence the interpretation of the data set which created that graph shows it then you are duty bound to present it.

Did U see/have it or are u (again) making unsubstantiated ideologically based claims ?

Eg. Print bottom graph on your link, color in last 30 yrs vs 30 yrs from start. Which has more area under the mean, basic visual inspection shows decrease to 2015, HOW could U possibly claim 'above' ?

Stunning !
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2015
ubavontuba speculated
In regards to Greenland's ice melt, is it possible there is an outlet under the ice to the Arctic sea?
Possible, we have strange underground currents all over the world, In Australia where I live, we odd artesian wells, radio-isotopic & artificial dye tests have show deposition in Australia results in appearance in either Malaysia or Indonesia suggesting they are kinked for 1000's of Km's underground & under oceans !

Given location of Greenland & arctic circle & sum of ice mass from land lost to sea, there will be eventual sea level rise at equator, which of course is subject to influence of Earth's rotation. ie. a 2cm rise at arctic results, over suitable period, to higher rise at equator.

Point still is however, CO2's peculiar thermal properties & increase in atmosphere is swaying the Earth's energy balance, something Water_Prophet who claimed to graduate as a Physical Chemist goes to immense trouble to ignore & cannot address. why ?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2015
ubavontuba claimed
But I'm confident it will waver below the mean soon, as it normally does
Y ? Does this imply it can ONLY change due to so called "natural" cycles & NEVER EVER be influenced by AGW increased ocean heat ?

Or are there other mechanisms at play ?

ubavontuba offered
It is true that northern sea ice area has generally declined over previous highs, and southern sea ice area has increased, but we really don't know what the long term average for either pole is, as our measurements don't go back very far
Re averages u need to know/define periods with recording granularity but, we have benefit of precise knowledge of "specific heat" & also includes precise study of thermal properties, heat flow & above all integrating Total Solar Insolation to offer predictions.

Surely obvious to those appreciating dynamics; why Arctic with surrounding land vs Antarctica with surrounding sea has differential properties. Easy to confirm by experiment too :-)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2015
The weight issue for local plates is only a problem when it is concentrated locally at great height in much smaller area (ie, vertical miles of ice buildup on Greenland LAND surface).

This prompted me to look up a map of tectonic plates. Greenland is on the edge of the much larger North American plate. Presuming you are right about "local plate" dynamics, it actually means the weight would lift from the side of that whole plate. Allowing for some flex in a plate, it still means the North Atlantic and primarily Iceland, is in for some earthquake and maybe even heavy volcanic activity, inasmuch as Greenland is located not far from that major subduction zone. Hmmm...

WG, I think you are misunderstanding. Glacial isostasy occurs when the weight of a melted glacier is removed from the land, allowing it to "rebound". But do not get the false impression that this is a sudden process, any more than the sinking that resulted as the weight was added was sudden. **Cont**
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2015
For example, the eastern coast of the US continues to rebound from the glacial weight at a few CM/year, even though there hasn't been a glacier there for about 10,000 years. The isostasy will have no descernable effect on the NA plate, there is no chance of it causing tsumanis or anything like that, and it has little or nothing to do with the mid-oceanic ridge that is responsible for the Icelandic landscape and volcanoes.

As the plate under Greenland rebounds over the next 25,000 years, assuming that the icesheet does actually melt, it will have little descernable effect on ocean levels, certainly nothing that could be seen in a human lifetime.
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2015
WG, I think you are misunderstanding. Glacial isostasy occurs when the weight of a melted glacier is removed from the land, allowing it to "rebound". But do not get the false impression that this is a sudden process, any more than the sinking that resulted as the weight was added was sudden.

thanks for your measured and informative response. I'm aware of time spans involved in geological processes, so - am not panicking, more just having a little fun ...:-)
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2015
Wow, it looks like the deniers are getting fewer and fewer and facts bare down on puppetry and delusion. Here is confirmation about the ice-melt and sea level rise from another source; The BBC!
Our estimates from 1993 to 2010 agree with estimates from modern tide gauges and satellite altimetry, within the bounds of uncertainty. But that means that the acceleration into the last two decades is far worse than previously thought," said Dr Carling Hay from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This new acceleration is about 25% higher than previous estimates,

http://www.bbc.co...30816143

In simple words, the ice melt is far worst than anyone expected meaning the flooding of coastal areas in 20-30 years or so is a reality. There is a lot of Florida and the East coast that could be lost for millions of years from the global warming that's happening now (ignoring the effect is global) . And we haven't even hit the peak!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
In simple words, the ice melt is far worst than anyone expected meaning the flooding of coastal areas in 20-30 years or so is a reality. There is a lot of Florida and the East coast that could be lost for millions of years from the global warming that's happening now (ignoring the effect is global) . And we haven't even hit the peak!

As long as the Mutiny Hotel in Coconut Grove remains above water, I'm a happy camper...
I recommend it to any/every one. Say "Hey" to Atchana and the gang (you'll know who they are) for (Chuck & Dianne) if you go there...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
Uba
Heck, Antarctica wasn't even discovered until the 1820's, and wasn't even mapped until the 1900's.

Why does it show up on the Piri Reis map then? Even shows Antarctica WITHOUT the ice...

My theory? Fargin' Time Travellers...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
Why does it show up on the Piri Reis map then? Even shows Antarctica WITHOUT the ice...


BTW - circa 1513 according to Wikipedia...
It also shows Greenland, too...
(without surrounding ice)
PhotonX
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 17, 2015
Dyson still says the polar bears will be fine. Dyson is still smarter than any of you as well.
Have you really never heard of the logical fallacy argument from authority, or are you just hoping nobody else has? What do you think makes Dyson any kind of authority on polar bears? Are you planning to have Dyson do your open heart surgery, because he's really, really smart? Or maybe instead leave it to someone who actually knows what he's doing? And the scary thing is that the Dyson line was the smartest part of that post.
.
Carry on.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2015
The Polar Bears will be fine: They get a little darker and start hunting elk.

It's the rest of us I worry about.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
The Polar Bears will be fine: They get a little darker and start hunting elk.

It's the rest of us I worry about.
I don't think you worry about the rest of us one bit, if you did you would check the impact of CO2 on warming re your claimed degree in Physical Chemistry & be able to show definitively whether or not CO2 has an effect on long wave radiation to space ?

So can U Water_Prophet ?

Do you really have a degree in Physical Chemistry ?

Can U communicate more intelligently ?

Can U learn anything without stooping over a brass bowl ?

Anything a bit smarter re your claims Water_Prophet, even just a little by any chance ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2015
Absolutely Mike_M, but whenever I post them you don't have the background to understand them.

It is a little uncomfortable the way you obsess over me. Do you have father issues? Need some weird confirmation? I only took the baseline in psychology, so I admit my understanding here is sketchy, but since I only took the basic psychology, that does mean that I went further in some area, right? Why not P Chem?

I demo'd an understanding of Relativity, Special and General, tangential to my field, what more do you want?

How 'bout this?:

You're a good boy, Mike_, you're a special smart boy, and someday everyone will realize it, then you'll be the greatest, and nobody will be able to tell you what to do.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Absolutely Mike_M, but whenever I post them you don't have the background to understand them
Caught you in a major LIE - You have never posted the comparative long wave radiation to space - ever - not once, prove me wrong ?

Water_Prophet
It is a little uncomfortable...Need some weird confirmation?
Then don't make obviously bad claims !

STUPID people who lie about their qualifications, keeps claiming yet proves they cannot have such training by the way they write, its been proven again & again ?

Eg.
- Brass bowl, all the Q's asked - not one answered or addressed ?
- Instrumentation all the Q's evaded !

Water_Prophet claimed
I only took the baseline in psychology, so I admit my understanding here is sketchy, but since I only took the basic psychology, that does mean that I went further in some area, right? Why not P Chem?
U have NEVER written like anyone who had any training in Science let alone PC/Psych !

CO2 LW IR to space ???
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
.. understanding of Relativity, Special and General, tangential to my field, what more do you want?
So what ?

Anyone at Australian high school re Physics gets intro to SR/GR, past that they only need a few hours to get to grips with the next level routinely covered by 1st sem uni. I have never engaged U re SR/GR, I don't care about claims your make NOW re SR/GR - why distract again ?

Why can't U as a claimed Physical Chemist do the area under the curve, U know "integration" & re comparative analysis re CO2 & H2O from this ?
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Press the buttons look at the absorbancy curves for H2O vs CO2, your claim of 45x is NOT correct - take into account mass, be QUANTITATIVE ie a graduate !

Water_Prophet can't focus
You're a good boy...
Waste of time writing rubbish WHY can't U focus on Science, details that prove CO2's absorbancy & been known for >100 yrs.

OR show where its WRONG - can U ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2015
I do it all the time, I guess you never claim to read it, so it doesn't exist? It pretty succinctly wipes out your CO2 religion. The integration under the curve is a problem I posed to thermo to show he was incompetent. Why are you challenging me with my own challenge? Thermo's been demonstrated incompetent, so the answer is just exponential growth until it reaches its steady-state. Physically, ah, never mind, you wouldn't get it, you haven't before.

But it's all right young man, you'll prove us all wrong someday. You're smart, you're better educated and all the stuff you make up, is really true. Someday everyone will believe you, and you'll be justified in all the mud slinging and spurious insulting conclusions. Everyone will believe you.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
I do it all the time, I guess you never claim to read it, so it doesn't exist?
Show ONE example of where you address CO2's absorbancy of long wave IR to space, just one - can U ?

Water_Prophet claims
It pretty succinctly wipes out your CO2 religion
No. Its physics, its testable & been shown to be true for >100 yrs, where is your evidence its wrong ?

Water_Prophet claimed
But it's all right young man, you'll prove us all wrong someday
YOU can prove me wrong by showing NOW, CO2 absorbancy to space of long wave IR is "trivial" can U do that, when have U ever done that ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2015
So Mikey-boy, tell me what will constitute proof in your uneducated perspective, and I will show it to you. Don't be vague, spell out what will constitute proof, what path I need to take and any others variables I need to hit so that you don't weasel out after it's demo'd to you.

I mean anyone educated could look at the IR of water, see that it is ubiquitous in the IR (never absorbs at zero), has many more peaks in the IR, know that its concentration is about 20x CO2, and draw immediate irreconcilable conclusions from that, I've presented this many times, and let's face it, you're not bright enough to see this over your own opinion. Water vapor has increased 435ppm, and you are still whining about 135 ppm from CO2. How does a 435ppm increase in a strong GHG generate no effect, while 135ppm from a weak one does?

That's proof, that's it, what more do you want? What about that is actually contestable? Nothing, but you will find a way.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2015
Water_Prophet might be getting somewhere
.. tell me what will constitute proof in your uneducated perspective, and I will show it to you
Based on CO2's absorbancy/re-radiation spectra in comparison with H2O's spectra in terms of long wave IR to space nicely documented on this graph:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Start with actual buttons for H2O vs CO2 & with button for Earths spectra, U should notice CO2 has bands comparable with H2O but at different wavelengths !

As a claimed physical chemist work out from spectra & path lengths (eg beer lambert) in concert with the concentration U can work out how much thermal resistivity is added !

Comparison & to make it easier for u look at Mars:-
- less than 1% earth's atmosphere
- 95% CO2
- farther from sun
Yet reaches a balmy 20 to 35C in the SHADE, how is this possible AND with negligible H2O.

What do physical chemists need to CALCULATE CO2's comparative increase ?

Or interpret a paper on it ?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2015
It pretty succinctly wipes out your CO2 religion
@ALCHE/H2oCRYbabyTROLL

and again, i specifically ask: Where is the refute of the study i linked which demonstrated the cycle of the WV/CO2 and feedback forcing?

Your claims above state that you've "wiped out" those claims, but i have need NO studies nor have i seen you post a link to a scientific refute that undermined or even caused retraction of said study i linked

Therefore, this claim, like all your other claims, is simply your attempt to obfuscate science and trolling with baiting claims which are not only not supported by science, but are also irrelevant and pseudoscience given the nature of your claims
tell me what will constitute proof
lets start with a STUDY which refutes the linked studies that i have given you

then we can move on to the rest of the evidence you've claimed in the past

i am STILL waiting...

Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2015
So Mikey-if you take the iteration of those values on the site you give, and you compensate them for concentration, our exercise is over. Use Beer's law or an exact calculation, they both come to the same results. Water blows CO2 out of the water. It is not even a comparison. You can do numerical analysis and draw a right trapezoid to estimate the area under the curve. Though why you'd need to when water vapor absorbs ~80% what CO2 does in CO2 major peak I don't know.

You should notice CO2 has 1., One, band, (in the thermal) and water has several, AND absorbs some IR at every frequency.

Are we done?

Oh, joy I can't wait to hear why we're not done.

@Stumpy, if you are going to link to poor studies, and then run away when they're debunked, we go nowhere.
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2015
You should notice CO2 has 1., One, band, (in the thermal) and water has several, AND absorbs some IR at every frequency.
Which is a common misconception among the deniers. Just because CO2 is 1, doesn't exclude it from being *the* major cause of global warming. While H2O vapor traps a lot of heat, it's effect is fleeting. It will last days at best. CO2 on the other hand will last 1000s of years, day in and day out, trapping more and more heat. As the concentration of CO2 increases so does it's heat trapping ability. It's why we are hear debating.

@Water your intelligent enough to see the damage that water can do, but compared to CO2 long term, water is weak.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2015
and then run away when they're debunked
@ALCHE
you have never ONCE debunked any study i have linked, nor have you ever proven that the science is bad or the statistics wrong or the information not correct

i don't run from you
i am STILL waiting for you to produce the evidence that you claim you have

LINK that conversation where you debunked the study
link that study that debunks the linked study that i gave you

all you have are CLAIMS... and your claims are already proven false and i can show where you have lied to throw the conversation off of this specific point
(See your last post above for proof of that)

so...
SHOW US that study that debunked the linked studies that i gave you

your inability to comprehend the graphs that you've "claimed" explain everything are already well known. In fact, they only SUPPORT my study, and the information is even included in the CO2 study, which then uses that same info to explain WHY you are wrong

Well?
I'm waiting...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2015
... a common misconception among the deniers. Just because CO2 is 1, doesn't exclude it from being *the* major cause of global warming. While H2O vapor traps a lot of heat, it's effect is fleeting. It will last days at best. CO2 on the other hand will last 1000s of years, day in and day out, trapping more and more heat. As the concentration of CO2 increases so does it's heat trapping ability. It's why we are hear debating.

It's not one or the other. it's a combinatory effect of one ON the other...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
@runrig,
No water doesn't do a darn thing and it's about 40x more powerful than CO2. 20x more prevalent. It's not a misconception run', I know you're smart enough to figure it out. You dazzled before.
I guess @Mikey ran away, so that he can claim we never had this conversation. I was sure he's have some segue, obfuscation or distraction so he wouldn't have to admit it.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2015
@runrig,
No water doesn't do a darn thing and it's about 40x more powerful than CO2. 20x more prevalent. It's not a misconception run', I know you're smart enough to figure it out. You dazzled before.
I guess @Mikey ran away, so that he can claim we never had this conversation. I was sure he's have some segue, obfuscation or distraction so he wouldn't have to admit it.


You are the delusional fool that ran away.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
Vietvet:
You're a skeptinazi sympathizer, hope you can live with that. As a vet, you should be disgusted.
Practically speaking however, how would one win that contest. I had 3-4 scenarios they couldn't refute, except by saying "Oh wait for thermo's approach, it's going to be wonderful..." HOW DID THEY KNOW?
Anyway, they lost by 2-3 orders of magnitude even if I agree with their model.

So, EVEN IF I AGREE with their methods, they still failed by 2-3 orders of magnitude.

If you reduce the contribution of CO2, by about the 1/5, that was still overkill, and the condition I agreed to, the effect would be trivial. I forget how many iterations he did, because he wasn't smart enough to do the integral, or share it. but say it was 6. Look at the difference 1.2^6 =3 vs 2^6=64. Gives you an idea.

What do you not get?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
Deleted double post.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2015
@runrig, blah blah blah

Runrig? He hasn't even made a comment in this thread. Vietvet, what is he crying about now? Amazing how long that whiny S'o'S can carry on, even after he pouted and quit participating in an exercise he asked for!

Of course, he didn't understand how thermo was doing it, and because he didn't understand it, he couldn't make any intelligent rebuttals. Still, to continue crying about it still after this much time causes me to be concerned for his metal stability.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
Ah, guys you got me I am a whining quitter!

But a whining quitter with 3 UNDISPUTED wins!!!!!! Heheheheh!
Oh, and a silly one I made up to test the credibility and sincerity of the others. Which they failed, except it did reveal Maggnus didn't know what a mole was!

I feel really bad sitting under his judgment, let me tell you!

And you chumps just have a disputed one, 'cause you couldn't win with the assumptions WE agreed to!

You know guys, I wasn't feeling stellar, but you have put me in a good mood. Reliving a victory does that to a person: You should try joining the winning side!
animah
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
skeptinazi


Ah there's a name for that:

http://en.wikiped...Hitlerum

I invoke Godwin's Law.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
@animah, Ah, here's who they support!
http://www.popula...nce.html
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2015
a whining quitter with 3 UNDISPUTED wins
@ALCHE
funny how you've never been able to support even THIS claim...

another funny thing: you don't ignore me when you read some of the above, so we know you lie about that part
here's who they support
let's see... let us CONSIDER THE SOURCE, as you put it in another thread!
you link a site that not only BLATANTLY lies but is biased and has it out for an individual and claim it as legitimate when you want to post off topic rants about a person- and linking a site that is KNOWN for being biased and irrelevant as well as LYING and only posting fringe crackpot science or pseudoscience is NOT a good source, but then you want everyone on PO to "consider the source"????

i've given you studies
you still haven't refuted ANY of them

you use the excuse of "ignore" because you cannot refute the science or present equivalent evidence

Not cheap shots, just facts
(after all, YOU are ignoring ME, not the other way around)

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.