Melting ice sheets alarm scientists

[amiam*]

The following appeared in today's newspaper. The report is from the British Journal Nature. There seems to be a great concern that the melting of the polar ice is quickening.

Melting ice sheets alarm scientists
New satellite information shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica continue to shrink faster than scientists thought and in some places are already in runaway melt mode.

British scientists for the first time calculated changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges. That's where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica, ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003, according to a paper published online Thursday in the journal Nature.

Some of the areas are about a mile thick, so they still have plenty of ice to burn through. In parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 is 50 percent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

The new measurements, based on 50 million laser readings from a NASA satellite, confirm what some of the more pessimistic scientists thought: The melting is in a self-feeding loop. The more the ice melts, the more water surrounds and eats away at the remaining ice.

Please see:WASHINGTON, D.C.: Melting ice sheets alarm scientists -- chicagotribune.com

 

[Oddball]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TDqvD34hEA]YouTube - Gloom Despair[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The following appeared in today's newspaper. The report is from the British Journal Science. There seems to be a great concern that the melting of the polar ice is quickening.

Melting ice sheets alarm scientists
New satellite information shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica continue to shrink faster than scientists thought and in some places are already in runaway melt mode.

British scientists for the first time calculated changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges. That's where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica, ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003, according to a paper published online Thursday in the journal Nature.

Some of the areas are about a mile thick, so they still have plenty of ice to burn through. In parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 is 50 percent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

The new measurements, based on 50 million laser readings from a NASA satellite, confirm what some of the more pessimistic scientists thought: The melting is in a self-feeding loop. The more the ice melts, the more water surrounds and eats away at the remaining ice.

Please see:WASHINGTON, D.C.: Melting ice sheets alarm scientists -- chicagotribune.com

And I will repeat, we have only had Satellite measurements since at most the late 70's. that means at most 30 years. The data is nearly useless as a guide to what is normal, what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future.

As for Greenland about a thousand years ago it was, GASP, GREEN, thus the NAME. There was no Human caused global warming to blame it on either. No telling how long it had been green but for about a 100 years people lived on that Island and grew CROPS. BECAUSE it was GREEN.

Any study, any finding, any conclusion that starts with the premise of data from Satellites is less then useless. And since we have no more information about the poles or the glaciers or the ice on places like Greenland stored and usable, one can not claim it is scientific to make any conclusion about current trends in regards what is normal for the Earth.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok I used the quote function to quote the first post. I made no alterations to it and yet it is hosed. WHY?

 

[k2skier]

YouTube - Gloom Despair

Nice data to support your view point

To have a closed mind on this subejct...is to ignore all the data...

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2009

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent was greater than the past two years, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

 

[k2skier]

The following appeared in today's newspaper. The report is from the British Journal Nature. There seems to be a great concern that the melting of the polar ice is quickening.

Melting ice sheets alarm scientists
New satellite information shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica continue to shrink faster than scientists thought and in some places are already in runaway melt mode.

British scientists for the first time calculated changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges. That's where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica, ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003, according to a paper published online Thursday in the journal Nature.

Some of the areas are about a mile thick, so they still have plenty of ice to burn through. In parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 is 50 percent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

The new measurements, based on 50 million laser readings from a NASA satellite, confirm what some of the more pessimistic scientists thought: The melting is in a self-feeding loop. The more the ice melts, the more water surrounds and eats away at the remaining ice.[Quote]

Please see:WASHINGTON, D.C.: Melting ice sheets alarm scientists -- chicagotribune.com

,,,

 

[Old Rocks]

No, at the time of Eric the Red, the Greenland was no greener than it is right now. The name was a saleman's ploy to attract settlers. It was a marginal colony at the best of times. See Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for the real information concerning the settling of the colony and it's subsequent collapse.

 

[Old Rocks]

Firstly, Greenland is just a part of a single region and as such can not be assumed to represent any kind of global climate shift. See the article on the Medieval Warm Period for a global perspective on this time period. In short, the available proxy evidence indicates that globally warmth during this period was not particularly pronounced though certainly some regions may have experienced greater warming than others.

Secondly, a quick reality check shows that Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of that island. The vast majority of land not under an ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. Just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago?

Here is a brief account of the Viking settlement, which was an actual historical development, based on the chapter on Vikings in Greenland in Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red? who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He believed that you should give a land a good name so that people want to go there! It very likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors, climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one. But it was never lush and their existence was always harsh and meagre, especially due to the Viking's disdain for other peoples and other ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate side by side with the Inuit who easily out survived them. For heaven's sake, these people starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behaviour and is in fact a bit of a mystery to this day).

Instead of hunting whales in kayaks, they farmed cattle, goats and sheep despite having to keep them in a barn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a full 5 months out of the year! It was a constant challenge to get enough fodder for the winter. Starvation of the animals was frequent, emaciation routine. The pressures of grazing requirements and growing fodder for the winter led to over production of pastures, erosion and the need to go further and further a field to sustain the animals. Deforestation for pastures and firewood proceeded at unsustainable rates, leading, after a couple of centuries, to such desperate measures as having to cut precious sod for housing construction and even burning it for cooking and heating fuel.
Greenland Used to be Green : A Few Things Ill Considered

 

[RetiredGySgt]

YouTube - Gloom Despair

Nice data to support your view point

To have a closed mind on this subejct...is to ignore all the data...

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2009

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent was greater than the past two years, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

30 years of data do not make a LONG TERM average worth anything. Especially when discussing the EARTH. There was a major warming trend from the mid 20's to the end of the 40's in the Arctic. We have no measurements for those times much l;ess the thousands of years before that. Basing long term plans or claiming normal events or trends based on 30 years of the life of planet BILLIONS of years old is ludicrous. It is not scientific.

 

[KittenKoder]

Rocks, you need to stop getting your scientific articles from American Idol.

 

[Fatality]

YouTube - Gloom Despair

lol, the democratic party, damn!

 

[code1211]

YouTube - Gloom Despair

Nice data to support your view point

To have a closed mind on this subejct...is to ignore all the data...

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2009

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent was greater than the past two years, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

Lower in the article is the cut'n'paste below. The experts say that it is cooler now than the last two years, the existing ice is newer and thinner and more prone to melting yet it does not melt faster.

As the melt season ends this year, the trend is headed toward a line that will rise above the 2005 line and could move us into a position of 4th instead of the third putting 2005 as well as 2009 and 2008 behind us in terms of Ice Extent in the Arctic. Apparently 2006 was within the range of standard deviation.

Conditions in context

This year, the minimum extent did not fall as low as the minimums of the last two years, because temperatures through the summer were relatively cooler. The Chukchi and Beaufort seas were especially cool compared to 2007. Winds also tended to disperse the ice pack over a larger region.

While the ice extent this year is higher than the last two years, scientists do not consider this to be a recovery. Despite conditions less favorable to ice loss, the 2009 minimum extent is still 24% below the 1979-2000 average, and 20% below the thirty-year 1979-2008 average minimum. In addition, the Arctic is still dominated by younger, thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to seasonal melt. The long-term decline in summer extent is expected to continue in future years.


http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090917_Figure2.png

 

[Old Rocks]

YouTube - Gloom Despair

Nice data to support your view point

To have a closed mind on this subejct...is to ignore all the data...

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2009

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent was greater than the past two years, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

Lower in the article is the cut'n'paste below. The experts say that it is cooler now than the last two years, the existing ice is newer and thinner and more prone to melting yet it does not melt faster.

As the melt season ends this year, the trend is headed toward a line that will rise above the 2005 line and could move us into a position of 4th instead of the third putting 2005 as well as 2009 and 2008 behind us in terms of Ice Extent in the Arctic. Apparently 2006 was within the range of standard deviation.

Conditions in context

This year, the minimum extent did not fall as low as the minimums of the last two years, because temperatures through the summer were relatively cooler. The Chukchi and Beaufort seas were especially cool compared to 2007. Winds also tended to disperse the ice pack over a larger region.

While the ice extent this year is higher than the last two years, scientists do not consider this to be a recovery. Despite conditions less favorable to ice loss, the 2009 minimum extent is still 24% below the 1979-2000 average, and 20% below the thirty-year 1979-2008 average minimum. In addition, the Arctic is still dominated by younger, thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to seasonal melt. The long-term decline in summer extent is expected to continue in future years.


http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090917_Figure2.png

The long term decline in the summer extent is expected to continue in future years.

And that will lead to greater absorbtion of the energy of the sunlight by the open water, which will lead to faster melt of the ice. All this, in spite of the fact that we are in the declining phase of the Milankovic Cycles, and should be continueing the arctic cooling that was happening for a couple of thousand years before the massive burning of fossil fuels began.

 

[code1211]

Nice data to support your view point

To have a closed mind on this subejct...is to ignore all the data...

NSIDC Press Room: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for 2009

The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent was greater than the past two years, it is still below the long-term average, and well outside the range of natural variability.

Lower in the article is the cut'n'paste below. The experts say that it is cooler now than the last two years, the existing ice is newer and thinner and more prone to melting yet it does not melt faster.

As the melt season ends this year, the trend is headed toward a line that will rise above the 2005 line and could move us into a position of 4th instead of the third putting 2005 as well as 2009 and 2008 behind us in terms of Ice Extent in the Arctic. Apparently 2006 was within the range of standard deviation.

Conditions in context

This year, the minimum extent did not fall as low as the minimums of the last two years, because temperatures through the summer were relatively cooler. The Chukchi and Beaufort seas were especially cool compared to 2007. Winds also tended to disperse the ice pack over a larger region.

While the ice extent this year is higher than the last two years, scientists do not consider this to be a recovery. Despite conditions less favorable to ice loss, the 2009 minimum extent is still 24% below the 1979-2000 average, and 20% below the thirty-year 1979-2008 average minimum. In addition, the Arctic is still dominated by younger, thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to seasonal melt. The long-term decline in summer extent is expected to continue in future years.


http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090917_Figure2.png

The long term decline in the summer extent is expected to continue in future years.

And that will lead to greater absorbtion of the energy of the sunlight by the open water, which will lead to faster melt of the ice. All this, in spite of the fact that we are in the declining phase of the Milankovic Cycles, and should be continueing the arctic cooling that was happening for a couple of thousand years before the massive burning of fossil fuels began.

I have posted the links that show this to be false. Are you incapable of reading them when posted? Why do you continue to post this falsehood? There are 3 Milankovith Cycles. The one that drives the occurrance of ice Ages will not be at the optimum for warming for another 6000 years or so.

The cooling ended before the "massive burning of fossile began." Again, I have posted the links that prove this and you continue to post this falsehood. Why?

The proof of warming is that it is warming. By using falsehoods to connect that warming to the burning of fossil fuels, you weaken your case as it appears that you have no legitimate proof.

The progess of the Milankovitch cycles is quite slow and as an amateur geologist, you should appreciate that none of the three would or could have an impact across 200 years.

The fact that the magnetic North Pole is shifting at a relatively dramatic speed might have an impact on the ice. Again, as an amateur geologist, don't you think that this would have a stronger impact on the Arctic Ice than the 200 year year change in a 20+ thousand year cycle or a 100+ thousand year cycle?

What might be the crossing influences of all of these on the winds and ocean currents that surely have a greater impact on the ice Extent than the below freezing temps in that area?

 

[Mad Scientist]

We'd better give these guys billions of more dollars for research before we all drown. It's the only way.

 

[mdn2000]

Why argue, give it to them, yes the Artic ice has shrunk, yes its the worst it can possibly be, there is so little left yet how many people died, none, how many cities did we lose, none.

There you go, the earth is warming just as you say and nothing happened, nobody died, wow, really scary. Really, really, scary.