West Greenland Ice Sheet melting at the fastest rate in centuries

March 28, 2018, Dartmouth College
Record of melt from two west Greenland ice cores showing that modern melt rates (red) are higher than at any time in the record since at least 1550 CE (black). The record is plotted as the percent of each year's layer represented by refrozen melt water. Credit: Erich Osterberg

The West Greenland Ice Sheet melted at a dramatically higher rate over the last twenty years than at any other time in the modern record, according to a study led by Dartmouth College. The research, appearing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, shows that melting in west Greenland since the early 1990s is at the highest levels in at least 450 years.

While natural patterns of certain atmospheric and ocean conditions are already known to influence Greenland melt, the study highlights the importance of a long-term warming trend to account for the unprecedented west Greenland melt rates in recent years. The researchers suggest that climate change most likely associated with human greenhouse gas emissions is the probable cause of the additional warming.

"We see that west Greenland melt really started accelerating about twenty years ago," said Erich Osterberg, assistant professor of earth sciences at Dartmouth and the lead scientist on the project. "Our study shows that the rapid rise in west Greenland melt is a combination of specific weather patterns and an additional long-term warming trend over the last century."

According to research cited in the study, loss of ice from Greenland is one of the largest contributors to global sea level rise. Although glaciers calving into the ocean cause much of the ice loss in Greenland, other research cited in the study shows that the majority of ice loss in recent years is from increased surface melt and runoff.

While satellite measurements and climate models have detailed this recent ice loss, there are far fewer direct measurements of melt collected from the ice sheet itself. For this study, researchers from Dartmouth and Boise State University spent two months on snowmobiles to collect seven ice cores from the remote "percolation zone" of the West Greenland Ice Sheet.

Ice cores from the West Greenland Ice Sheet 'percolation zone' were studied under a light table at Dartmouth's Ice Core Laboratory to reveal ice layers that tell the history of how much melt has occurred through time. Credit: Robert Gill/Dartmouth College

When warm temperatures melt snow on the surface of the percolation zone, the melt water trickles down into the deeper snow and refreezes into ice layers. Researchers were easily able to distinguish these ice layers from the surrounding compacted snow in the cores, preserving a history of how much melt occurred back through time. The more melt, the thicker the ice layers.

"Most ice cores are collected from the middle of the ice sheet where it rarely ever melts, or on the ice sheet edge where the meltwater flows into the ocean. We focused on the percolation zone because that's where we find the best record of Greenland melt going back through time in the form of the refrozen ice layers," said Karina Graeter, the lead author of the study as a graduate student in Dartmouth's Department of Earth Sciences.

The cores, some as long as 100-feet, were transported to Dartmouth where the research team used a light table to measure the thickness and frequency of the ice layers. The cores were also sampled for chemical measurements in Dartmouth's Ice Core Laboratory to determine the age of each ice layer.

The cores reveal that the ice layers became thicker and more frequent beginning in the 1990s, with recent melt levels that are unmatched since at least the year 1550 CE.

"The ice record ends about 450 years ago, so the modern melt rates in these cores are the highest of the whole record that we can see," said Osterberg. "The advantage of the ice cores is that they show us just how unusual it is for Greenland to be melting this fast".

A video detailing the 2016 research expedition to collect ice cores in West Greenland Ice Sheet "percolation zone"

Year-to-year changes in Greenland melt since 1979 were already known to be closely tied to North Atlantic ocean temperatures and high-pressure systems that sit above Greenland during the summer - known as summer blocking highs. The new study extends the record back in time to show that these were important controls on west Greenland melt going back to at least 1870.

The study also shows that an additional summertime warming factor of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit is needed to explain the unusually strong melting observed since the 1990s. The additional warming caused a near-doubling of melt rates in the twenty-year period from 1995 to 2015 compared to previous times when the same blocking and ocean conditions were present.

"It is striking to see how a seemingly small warming of only 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit can have such a large impact on melt rates in west Greenland," said Graeter.

The study concludes that North Atlantic ocean temperatures and summer blocking activity will continue to control year-to-year changes in Greenland melt into the future. Some climate models suggest that summer blocking activity and ocean temperatures around Greenland might decline in the next several decades, but it remains uncertain. However, the study points out that continued warming from human activities would overwhelm those weather patterns over time to further increase melting.

"Cooler North Atlantic ocean temperatures and less summer blocking activity might slow down Greenland melt for a few years or even a couple decades, but it would not help us in the long run," said Osterberg. "Beyond a few decades, Greenland melting will almost certainly increase and raise sea level as long as we continue to emit greenhouse gases."

Explore further: More summer sunshine leading to increased Greenland ice melt

More information: K. A. Graeter et al, Ice Core Records of West Greenland Melt and Climate Forcing, Geophysical Research Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1002/2017GL076641

Related Stories

The melting ice makes the sea around Greenland less saline

October 13, 2017

For the first time, ocean data from Northeast Greenland reveals the long-term impact of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The observed increase in freshwater content will affect the conditions in all Greenland fjords ...

Ice stream retreats under a cold climate

October 19, 2017

Why did the Jakobshavn Isbræ ice stream in West Greenland retreat under a cold climate period called the Younger Dryas? A research article, published in Nature Communications, shows that a warmer ocean surface in central-eastern ...

Recommended for you

Evidence of earliest life on Earth disputed

October 17, 2018

When Australian scientists presented evidence in 2016 of life on Earth 3.7 billon years ago—pushing the record back 220 million years—it was a big deal, influencing even the search for life on Mars.

Arctic greening thaws permafrost, boosts runoff

October 17, 2018

A new collaborative study has investigated Arctic shrub-snow interactions to obtain a better understanding of the far north's tundra and vast permafrost system. Incorporating extensive in situ observations, Los Alamos National ...

72 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
2 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2018
"According to research cited in the study, loss of ice from Greenland is one of the largest contributors to global sea level rise. "

Well since the sea level rise is minimal at best per the tide gauges the melting must be minimal also.

http://www.dmi.dk...-budget/

Also 2017 was a great year for Greenland Ice gain and this year is just a tad above average.
PTTG
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 28, 2018
Everything MR166 wrote is a lie.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2018
Everything MR166 wrote is a lie.


I can't wait for him to say that "sea level rises are only 3.4mm a year" as though that is minimal just because you see the terms 'mm' in it.

This is like saying that "temperatures have only increased by 1 degree celsius" when 2 degrees is the collapse of human civilisation and human extinction happens somewhere between 4 and 7.

Also, "CO2 is a trace gas" and, of course:

"The scientifically illiterate don't understand the dose response" and "global averages results in extreme regional impacts".

Those last two are my favourites.
SamB
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2018


I can't wait for him to say that "sea level rises are only 3.4mm a year" as though that is minimal just because you see the terms 'mm' in it.


I can't wait for the leetennant to say that the sea levels have been 'dramatically' rising for decades and more islands will soon be under 10 ft of ocean water just like the Maldives...
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 28, 2018
If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea levels will rise 65 centimetres by 2100. That's just what the data says. Not only are sea levels rising, that rate of rise is increasing.

I get we're at the "yes all that is true but it doesn't matter" part of the denial goal-post shift but that doesn't change the fact you a) don't understand data or b) are lying.
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2018
At least the headline is not confirmed by the chart they show , a moment of honesty [ barely ] lol
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2018
More Pathological LIES from the AGW Cult and their Pathological "science" of "COOKED" data.

https://principia...manmade/
Thorium Boy
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2018
Lucky Greenland, just like in the C02-less past, the Medieval warming period, Greenland will be farmable again.
alexander2468
2.4 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2018
The Vikings landed on Greenland and set up farms with crops and livestock between 800-1200 Greenland Vikings lived mostly on dairy produce and meat, primarily from cows. The vegetable diet of Greenlanders included berries, edible grasses, and seaweed during the Medieval Warm period. A find at the bottom of an ancient rubbish heap in Greenland shows that Vikings grew barley on the island 1,000 years ago
.
Thorium Boy>Lucky Greenland, just like in the C02-less past, the Medieval warming period, Greenland will be farmable again.


granville583762
2.7 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2018
Very good point! How did they farm as the land was covered in water due to glacier melt water.

alexander2468> The Vikings landed on Greenland and set up farms with crops and livestock between 800-1200 Greenland Vikings lived mostly on dairy produce and meat, primarily from cows. The vegetable diet of Greenlanders included berries, edible grasses, and seaweed during the Medieval Warm period. A find at the bottom of an ancient rubbish heap in Greenland shows that Vikings grew barley on the island 1,000 years ago
.
Thorium Boy>Lucky Greenland, just like in the C02-less past, the Medieval warming period, Greenland will be farmable again.



MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2018
https://wattsupwi...t-hosed/

The sea level rise has been very constant and not accelerating. Also there is a huge unexplained difference between the land based tide gauges and the the satellite readings.
Turgent
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2018
Typically, glaciers expand or retreat at some lag time after changes in temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, etc. "We see that west Greenland melt really started accelerating about twenty years ago," In the 80's temperature began to rise measurably. Is there a lag of 20 years? How does this compare with East Greenland as well as worldwide. Is this a localized effect melting?
"The study also shows that an additional summertime warming factor of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit is needed to explain the unusually strong melting observed since the 1990s." By itself this is an inference that temperatures increased 2.2 degrees F. Does anything support this conjecture?

cont
Turgent
2 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2018
"Greenland melting will almost certainly increase and raise sea level…" True, will it be measurable particularly when "Cooler North Atlantic ocean temperatures and less summer blocking activity might slow down Greenland melt for a few years or even a couple decades," and this could increase artic albedo or other cooling effects not accounted for.

Unless the multitude of other factors are addressed this is the equivalent to observing ant behavior and concluding that humans are mindless automatons. Hard to prove or disprove.
barakn
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2018
...A find at the bottom of an ancient rubbish heap in Greenland shows that Vikings grew barley on the island 1,000 years ago. -alexander2468
The evidence for barley consists of a few scorched grains in a single layer at the bottom of one trash heap. "The find also substantiates a well-known text from about 1250, 'King's mirror (Konungs skuggsjá)', which mentions in passing that the Vikings attempted to grow grain on Greenland. It is the only report about cultivating barley that we have from that time and says: "As to whether any sort of grain can grow there, my belief is that the country draws but little profit from that source. And yet there are men among those who are counted the wealthiest and most prominent who have tried to sow grain as an experiment; but the great majority in that country do not know what bread is, having never seen it."" https://ancientfo...eenland/
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2018
Sea level rise between 1870 and 1990 was less than 1.5 mm year.
Sea level rise between 1993 and 2017 was 3.2 mm per year.

I think that is statistically significant MR...
https://climate.n...a-level/
Turgent
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2018
There are actually at least 2 cultivated fields in Greenland. Unfortunately the current google map is bad so they are not visible. If grain can be grown now it must have been easier then.
Turgent
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2018
"Sea level rise between 1870 and 1990 was less than 1.5 mm year." hmmm specific? And 3.2 mm is specific because satellites now measure it.

120 years x 1.5mm = 180 mm = 7 inches There should be physical manifestations of this which are easily visible. NASA AGW advocate shouldn't be trusted anymore than the IRS.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2018
"Sea level rise between 1870 and 1990 was less than 1.5 mm year." hmmm specific? And 3.2 mm is specific because satellites now measure it.

120 years x 1.5mm = 180 mm = 7 inches There should be physical manifestations of this which are easily visible.


You mean like the parts of New York that were evacuated following Superstorm Sandy because they're no longer considered habitable because they've had to shift the flood maps? You mean like the Torres Strait Islands in Australia that are being overwhelmed? You mean like the flood maps in my own city being updated because 1 in 100 years events are now 1 in 50. You mean like the Thai government considering moving Bangkok being huge parts of it will be submerged by 2030? Those kinds of things?
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2018
yes here they are ''overwhelmed'' , funny about how sea level rises !!! in some spots but not others ?

https://www.sbs.c...-islands
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2018
Funny how sea level rises at different rates in different places. Who'd a thunk - well that is unless you had done any basic reading on the subject - http://www.geolog...m/?p=590
grandpa
1 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2018
Global warming is a good thing. The world was headed to ice-ball earth. Somehow humans are saving the earth. I think someday our overpopulation of the earth will be thwarted by microbiology, which will overwhelm us as well. Humans will go back to living in isolated tribes and warring factions. Life on earth will survive us.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2018
yes here they are ''overwhelmed'' , funny about how sea level rises !!! in some spots but not others ?

https://www.sbs.c...-islands


Yeah it's weird how this thing that is science is true.
Turgent
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2018
You mean like the parts of New York that were evacuated following Superstorm Sandy because they're no longer considered habitable because they've had to shift the flood maps?


"Superstorm Sandy" is grossly out of context. Sandy was a level 2 or 3 hurricane that was in the right place at the right time. Look at a map and see that storm rise was on account of the funneling effect into NY harbor. Also, figure in strong tides.

Right Staten Island had some flooding because or ocean rise! Nonsense. How much death and destruction of the 1938 Great New England Hurricane was because of sea level rise? None

AGW alarmists should stop writing false history. This is like Soviet history. If something doesn't fit the ideology erase it or change it.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2018
It would not matter what example was used to show that sea level rise is affecting us today - people like Turgent would be screaming about how AGW alarmists are writing false history. The fact is that sea levels have risen - on average about 8 inches in the last 100 years or so. The climate is warming, and as a result - we are seeing ice sheets/glaciers melt - and sea levels are rising. There is every reason to believe this trend will continue. So smart people will want to study the issue - and take action when necessary. Florida is at particular risk - along with many other low lying areas. It is not ideology - other than an ideology of wanting to respect science. It is the deniers who suffer from religious bias. http://sealevel.c...sing-sea
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2018
Blah blah blah Turgent, it doesn't change the fact that the storm surge due to climate change was sufficient to have people be permanently evacuated from those areas. Flood maps have to take storm surge into account and those areas were deemed habitable and are now deemed uninhabitable. That's what sea level rises do.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2018
onions , good article , http://www.geolog...m/?p=590 , certainly explains why sea level must be hard to measure , pick any number to make your case
SamB
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2018
Sea level rise between 1870 and 1990 was less than 1.5 mm year.
Sea level rise between 1993 and 2017 was 3.2 mm per year.

I think that is statistically significant MR...
https://climate.n...a-level/


I beg to disagree. Since the earth has had a history of 4 billion years, the 'significance' of the last 200 years is 'insignificant' for any statistician of any stature. You cannot get any meaning from a minuscule snippet from one side of a data spike taken from the latest data from eons of data spikes. Since, historically, we have seen many spikes of warm and cool climate, (without human intervention) we must assume that anything is possible including something out of the ordinary. Just because many scientists think the Arctic and Antarctic should always remain cold and stable, does not mean that it actually will.
I imagine that the Dutch thought their canals would never freeze either, but they did.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2018
I beg to disagree
disagree all you want Sam - does not change the reality that the statistics I showed you are significant. Has it been colder in the past? Yes. Has it been hotter in the past? Yes. Not relevant to the point at hand. Sea levels are rising. This is caused by extra water being added to the system from ice sheet melt, and from thermal expansion. The warming trend cannot be associated with the natural cycles we are familiar with (Milankovich cycles). Deny all you want - does not change what is happening. We know about the past - it does not explain current trend.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2018
snoosebaum
pick any number to make your case
So what is your case? pick a number and show us. I have no case - other than the facts of what is happening. You deniers like to project your game playing on to others.
Turgent
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2018
Blah blah blah Turgent, it doesn't change the fact that the storm surge due to climate change was sufficient to have people be permanently evacuated from those areas. Flood maps have to take storm surge into account and those areas were deemed habitable and are now deemed uninhabitable. That's what sea level rises do.


Get a grip.

Our powers of measurement aren't good enough to make such statements. BTW SuperstormSandy was a Cat 1 hurricane when it made landfall and it wasn't that for long.

If you build on beach front you toes will get wet. N. America moves 25 to 100mm west each year. Might this have a little on land level rise of sink? Amongst others sea water is encroaching into the Mississippi delta. Sea water level truly has been rising relative to the sinking delta.

If sea level is rising what are the causes? Melt water, thermal expansion, other, or all of the above.

cont
Turgent
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2018
Where is there any quantitative argument, other than a politicized AGW advocate making a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) as to what sea level rise was prior to 1990.

Romans build concrete and stone docks, is there anyway this might be used to collaborate this postulate. to support and Greeks built docks.

With what is presented here the argument is flimsy at best. Further, by the tone of things sea level rise is the effect of global warming. At least the thermal expansion of water should be addressed if surface temperatures are to have any effect on volume of water.

An easy estimate of sea level rise would be:

energy absorbed via AGW - steady state temp or prior trend

Average expansion of sea water

Due to gravity the ocean is not flat so the equations to figure the total effect are challenging. The sea level low spots would take a greater volume of the rise than those parts of the ocean which are flat. Consider the Marianas trench.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2018
Amongst others sea water is encroaching into the Mississippi delta. Sea water level truly has been rising relative to the sinking delta.


Yeah, thanks to the Army Corps of Engineers who started building that damn system of levees back in the 30's just to create jobs for the hardcore unemployed. It's the reason New Orleans was flooded out by the creation of a delta zone that was lower than sea level, and now to listen to greenie AGWs it's all because of AGW CO2 that the delta is so screwed up.

OK you greenies, would you advocate for the destruction of all those levees? I would, then the delta would stop sinking.
Turgent
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2018
Greenonion1

Big to differ:

"I think that is statistically significant MR..." The numbers argue the opposite.

Sea level rise between 1870 and 1990 was less than 1.5 mm year.
Sea level rise between 1993 and 2017 was 3.2 mm per year.

The observed sea level rise described is a essentially a step function.

The slopes of the two lines are statistically very different. Mathematically this is a discontinuous function. A statistical analysis tells you you have two different entities. It would be like the average height of a classroom of 3rd graders. Then separating the boys and girls and calculating the average. Applying the statistical t-test this would tell you there are two different populations in the data set. Each would have a different average height. Here we have the same thing in effect. The 1.2mm rise and 3.2mm rise are two different animals.

cont.

Turgent
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2018
Additionally, there is not margin of error for the pre-1990 data.

NASA doesn't even show a data set for pre-1990 in their supporting material. Typically "It is good enough for government work." However, this is much worse than that. Pre-1990 is pure conjecture here.

https://climate.n...a-level/
Turgent
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2018

"Yeah, thanks to the Army Corps of Engineers who started building that damn system of levees back in the 30's just to create jobs for the hardcore unemployed. It's the reason New Orleans was flooded out by the creation of a delta zone that was lower than sea level, and now to listen to greenie AGWs it's all because of AGW CO2 that the delta is so screwed up. "

The Army Corp of Engineers, at the direction of idiot congressmen, has done much more damage than just that. In the late 50's and 60's they drained huge areas of wetlands in Eastern N. and S. Dakota and Western Minnesota, as we needed more wheat fields. Not only did they destroy huge areas of wetlands and the associated wildlife, they aggravated flooding. These huge sponges for excessive rain and rapid snow melt were destroyed. Downstream this made additional work for the ACE in building levees and better locks. FTG

So the worsening flooding is attributable to AGW induced CC. And the media goes wild CC porn.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2018
Turgent
Big to differ
Big all you want... Fact is that it is statistically significant that sea level rise was around 1.5 mm per year from 1870 to 1990, and current sea level rise is around 3 mm year. I get that you can use big terms. Talk to Benni - he can do calculus. None of that changes the very simple comparison - which is statistically significant.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2018
Talk to Benni - he can do calculus. None of that changes the very simple comparison - which is statistically significant.


OK greeno, tell us; are you in favor of the levees the Corps constructed being removed?
Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2018
"which is statistically significant."

Assume the 2 individual data sets are statistically significant. If so they lose significance when combined. How do these data sets have such different linearity (slopes)? The fact that 1870 - 1990 is LESS then 1.5mm means it could be -4mm one year and +7mm the next. This is piss poor science. CO2 has increased on an exponential curve with the power being something greater than 1 and less than 2. A look at world coal consumption: https://gailtheac...tion.png suggests it is close to x^2. There should be significantly strong correlations between this, CO2, surface temperature rise, energy absorption by water, and waters positive and negative coefficients of expansion. This fails to mention this and the 2 are not. NASA is smarter than this. The data begs the scientific question; why are the slopes different? And NASA is silent on this.

Cont.
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2018
As with so much AGW and CC presentation only narrow and partial information is provided. This article should have at least stated something to the effect, "Unlike the E. Greenland glaciers and those of the Canadian Arctic W. Greenland is unique in that its glaciers are accelerating in the melting." Why are these different?

As regards big words, these are all applied high school algebra:
Slope
Discontinuous function
t-test
Margin of error

Have the wisdom not to criticize what you don't understand.

Benni can do DEs which is beyond basic calculas.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2018
Have the wisdom not to criticize what you don't understand
I'm not criticizing the data - you are. I am just pointing out the obvious - that the slope post 1990 is steeper than the slope pre 1990 - and it is by a statistically significant amount. You can accuse NASA of what ever you want. Hey - where is your counter data? Deniers are of course expert at everything - and know better than the whole world of science. But when the obvious stares you in the face - hey obfuscate with complicate shit.
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2018
- and it is by a statistically significant amount. .


Show the math. That can't be done because there are no data points for 1870-1990. The back up data

ftp://podaac.jpl....1801.txt

for post 1990 does crunch some statistical parameters yet omits quantifying statistical significance. Weird. Further it uses weighted observations and Gaussian smoothing. Per your preference things should be simply. I agree in this case. Messuage, the numbers enough and you can have a kitty or be polishing a turd.

There has to be supporting math otherwise science is nothing but conjecture.

Instead of denigrating an informed critic by defining analysis as "to obfuscate and complicate", do your homework. It really isn't that hard. You're a bright guy, right?

greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2018
Show the math
Sure 1.5 < 3.2

Maybe you are too busy trying to obfuscate with your bullshit - but guess what? There is more than a 5% chance that a graph showing 1.5 mm per year for 100 years - would become a graph of 3.2mm for 24 years by chance.

Now - why don't you tell us what your point is. The sea level is rising. It is rising faster today than it was 100 years ago. It is rising because of the warming of our climate.

Again - what is your point?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2018
@Turgent
Will you tell me why the fuck you care about a looser; talking about the Benni shoe shiner boy.
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2018
Sport
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2018
Sport
Thanks. Let me give a quick response to put today's discussion about ice sheets melting into perspective.
From my daily experience of life, and from looking at scientific research - it is reasonable to say we are currently doing a good job of fucking up our home (Earth). We don't KNOW what the future holds - but projections don't bode well. We are in the middle of an extinction event. Birds, insects, wildlife in general are showing signs of major stress - http://www.resili...ollapse/
Perhaps those of us who are concerned are wrong. It's Pascall's wager - right? So we try to understand why humans could be so stupid as to take that gamble. We try to argue in favor of the precautionary principle - and listening to science. But then we find ourselves smashing heads with seeming idiots - who think it is 'sport.'
jpweinzierl
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2018
At least the headline is not confirmed by the chart they show , a moment of honesty [ barely ] lol

Ummm...You have to actually click on the image to see the whole graph.
Turgent
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2018
Everyone is concerned about the health of our planet. Pointing out BS science doesn't make critics Darth Vader.
greenonions1
4.8 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2018
Everyone is concerned about the health of our planet
That is clearly not true. So let's just look at your example. Every time there is an article that mentions the term climate - there you are - trying to obfuscate - and attack the science. When challenged on your tactics (such as siding with a clear idiot called Benni) - you respond by saying 'sport.' So it is reasonable to conclude that you make sport out of trying to show off in terms of your superior knowledge (realize that we are not the ones constantly attacking science - you are)- and that you most certainly don't care about the health of the planet.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2018
Sport
Everyone is concerned about the health of our planet. Pointing out BS science doesn't make critics Darth Vader.

You are no Darth Vader... adversaries are not enemies, at least online we should not be. Here we are just a bunch of characters. But if one thing should prime in our exchange between strangers, it is honesty and that is where Benni fails... so sports he is certainly not.
Turgent
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2018
Yes. The best of Easter to you all.
Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2018
Greenie,

It just bothers me that when you scratch the surface of the multi-discipline climate science there are more arguments of advocacy rather than serious inquiry, hypothesis, findings, and support. Hawkings and L. Susskind argued the nature of blackholes for years. Their arguments originated within the depths of their math.

Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2018
Greenie,

It just bothers me that when you scratch the surface of the multi-discipline climate science there are more arguments of advocacy rather than serious inquiry, hypothesis, findings, and support. Hawkings and L. Susskind argued the nature of blackholes for years. Their arguments originated within the depths of their math.


Well then, please show us the mountain of research to the contrary, then. Or, at least, some of these "... arguments of advocacy rather than serious inquiry, hypothesis, findings, and support." of which you claim there is so much.

All of your wild and insupportable claims are just that, and simply aren't up to the task of backing your bullshite argument.

Agenda-driven argument such as yours simply isn't capable of superceding fact-based Science.

Just so you know, WattsUp blogging is just and only that --blogging, and not Science.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2018
Agenda-driven argument such as yours simply isn't capable of superceding fact-based Science.

Just so you know, WattsUp blogging is just and only that --blogging, and not Science.


........and have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? Real scientists can, I can & it ain't braggin' if you can do it.
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2018
Benni, when I ask you what you did with it, you had no answer. What good is a trick if it does no good?

We can hire kids who do those tricks. And they will know what they are for in reality, not school.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2018
Agenda-driven argument such as yours simply isn't capable of superceding fact-based Science.

Just so you know, WattsUp blogging is just and only that --blogging, and not Science.


........and have you ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve? Real scientists can, I can & it ain't braggin' if you can do it.


Yeah, bunny, Differential and even Integral Equations.

Do you think that this ability --assuming that you actually possess it-- somehow makes you special?

I recommend that you utilize the facts to support an argument, rather than just blathering on about your supposed knowledge of Calculus.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2018
Do you think that this ability --assuming that you actually possess it-- somehow makes you special?


........well, you think your foul mouthed name calling rants make you special, so why shouldn't my math skills make me special?

But that's right, I keep forgetting, in your fantasy world on the plantations funny farm pseudo-science where you believe 95% of the Universe is missing, the highest level of math & science skills have no usefulness.

humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2018
At least the headline is not confirmed by the chart they show , a moment of honesty [ barely ] lol

So apparently you don't know how to read graphs as it is confirmed by the graph they show.
Perhaps you need a 'moment of honesty'.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Apr 02, 2018
correct , my mistake
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2018
@ Calaboose

My first post:

"The study [Ice Core Records of West Greenland Melt and Climate Forcing] also shows that an additional summertime warming factor of 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit is needed to explain the unusually strong melting observed since the 1990s." By itself this is an inference that temperatures increased 2.2 degrees F. Does anything support this conjecture?"

What is your issue with this? Have you ever attended a science lecture and the lecturer sets asides time for questions? Sometimes, an authority in the audience will argue the points. Watch some You-tube science lecture videos and you will see. Or don't we and just drink the coolaid?

As regards sea level rise this thread went sideways with assertion that "Superstorm Sandy" damage was accounted for by sea level rise which is flatly false.

cont.
Turgent
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2018
Greenie cited https://climate.n...a-level/ from the NASA Global Climate Change site. Examine the facts and absence of facts presented here. My critique of "statistical significance" is applicable and spot on. Of course, unless you can point out the contrary. Then there is the objectivity of the source. Contained in the references is the mantra of the same old shit: "Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."

Falsehoods, red herrings, and fallacious arguments are something we discuss here, right? Do you have issue with point counter point?

"All of your wild and insupportable..."

Specifically, which claims are these and please so cite and they can be discussed.

"…bullshite argument."

Specifically, which ones do you consider poor arguments?

cont.
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2018
Here is a point for you to consider. The premise is that there is a huge amount of increased melt from 2.2 degrees F. Can this approximately 1 degree C penetrate the ice and increase the ice temp from below freezing up to the fusion temp (phase change) -0 →+0 C. The phase change takes a huge amount of energy. Can this energy increase be attributable solely to temp or might other factors have bearing? High latitudes have a high net annual thermal loss. Therefore this is pretty interesting in light of that. IT WOULD BE REALLY NEAT TO UNDERSTAND THIS!

We do not have the advantage of the paper, but here are some wild and insupportable claims which deserve objective discussion.

Can you do that or only criticize what you don't understand?

Is there a hypothesis here? It is unfortunate that the paper is paywalled.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2018
Here is a point for you to consider. The premise is that there is a huge amount of increased melt from 2.2 degrees F. Can this approximately 1 degree C penetrate the ice and increase the ice temp from below freezing up to the fusion temp (phase change) -0 →+0 C.


Of course not, gnat.

The heating occurs AT THE SURFACE.

Under what unworldly circumstances would air heat an ice sheet from within? Are cosmic rays heating the air trapped within the ice?

Your pretense of scientific literacy is ridiculous, and worthy of all the derision it attracts.

Turgent
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2018
Caliboss

I can't believe your insult.

"The heating occurs AT THE SURFACE."

Baldrick, no that is too simple.

Under what unworldly circumstances would air heat an ice sheet from within?

The WORLDLY circumstances include the spectrum in which certain gases absorb and reradiate light, combined with glacial surface conditions and gases and particles contained within the ice. It is not a trivial amount. Have you not noticed that both CO2 and SO4 are the trapped gases in the ice cores on which so much climate science is dependent? If we can serious consider ppb of +H (acidification) due to CO2 in sea water then don't trivialize gas and particles contained in ice.

The change in annual heat transfer is the cause of the melting. Temp is the presumed cause. It is the means of transfer which are at the core.

Cont.
Turgent
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2018
The average temperature of Kangerlussuaq, Greenland is -6 C. This is located in an appropriate place for this discussion. My questions relate to how a 1 C increase can have such a significant effect.

"Are cosmic rays heating the air trapped within the ice?" Yes, assuming the ice has a lifetime of 1000 years then will the ice retain 100% of the imparted cosmic ray energy? Is it trivial? That is unknown.

What is trivial? 1.2mm sea rise per year, 100 ppm of added CO2, 3% increase in atmospheric H2O, etc.

You are one of the useful AGW idiots who are so stupid they have no idea of how grossly ignorant they are. You don't want to understand, only howl that the egg must be cracked on the small end.

And of course this is funded through a grant from the NSF, and all that implies.

Show so scientific acumen by countering my points based on SCIENCE and MATH!

Occupy Wall Street!!!!
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2018
Of course, unless you can point out the contrary
I already did. 1.5 <3.2 There is less than a 5% chance that a slope of 1.5 mm year for 100 years - will turn into a 3.2 mm year for 24 years by chance. That is a P value of .05

Now what is your point? The ocean levels are increasing. That increase is caused by the warming of the climate. Do you have a point Turgent?
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2018
LMAO.
Astonishing, isn't it?
The only spots, at the Poles, where the AGW Cult can find Anthropogenic CO2 working its "magic", is exactly where there are known extensive geothermal activity.
Now, that's PATHOLOGICAL "science", for you.
Liebnitz434
1 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2018
It is amazing and sad once you get a AGW or CC kook down into the heart of the matter the depth of science is Pres. Bush did it.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2018
http://www.newswe...s-786943

Greeno, like Turg says, from beneath, not from over the top.

LMAO.
Astonishing, isn't it?
The only spots, at the Poles, where the AGW Cult can find Anthropogenic CO2 working its "magic", is exactly where there are known extensive geothermal activity.
Now, that's PATHOLOGICAL "science", for you.

greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2018
Benni - read your own article - or maybe have someone read it for you.

The combination of rising temperatures in the air and sea, precipitation from above, particular dynamics of the ice sheet and now heat loss from the Earth's interior is causing the Greenland ice sheet to lose its mass


Makes a complete joke of you saying
not from over the top.
When your own article contradicts your point.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2018
Benni - read your own article - or maybe have someone read it for you.

Makes a complete joke of you saying not from over the top.When your own article contradicts your point.


Yeah dipstick, here it is copied directly from the article, how did you miss it?

"Similar to Iceland, according to the researchers, a significant amount of geothermal activity is bubbling beneath the Earth's surface in Greenland. The heat loss radiating from the geothermal activity of the Earth's interior is melting glaciers from below—making it easier for them to slide into the sea"

http://www.newswe...s-786943

What is this with the selective cutting & pasting AGWs have become so well known for? The thing is, you're not even embarrassed by it even when so easy to track down what the source actually published. So now you contend there is no geothermal activity causing melting at the bottoms of glaciers in Greenland?
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2018
There is less than a 5% chance that a slope of 1.5 mm year for 100 years - will turn into a 3.2 mm year for 24 years by chance. That is a P value of .05


Are you for real?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2018
Yeah dipstick, here it is copied directly from the article, how did you miss it?
Well - the point I am making is pretty sophisticated. You see - you said -
not from over the top
But you see that is a lie. According to your own article - the ice sheet is melting from both the top, and the bottom. But you said it was not melting from 'over the top.' But it is melting from over the top - as well as from the bottom (according to the article you tagged.)

I guess logic is a bit advanced for you.

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.