In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years

[RollingThunder]

Anthropogenic global warming is rapidly melting most of the world's mountain glaciers. This threatens the water supplies for billions of people and also threatens the irrigation water supplies for large agricultural regions. The loss of these mountain glaciers will almost certainly result in great suffering and mass starvation within the next few decades. Regional conflicts over shrinking water supplies are probable in a number of areas around the world, as Pentagon reports have warned.

Here's the latest scientific study of just one of those disappearing glaciers that highlights just how fast these changes are occurring.

In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years
The New York Times
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: April 4, 2013
(excerpts)
Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance. The evidence comes from a remarkable find at the margins of the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru, the world’s largest tropical ice sheet. Rapid melting there in the modern era is uncovering plants that were locked in a deep freeze when the glacier advanced many thousands of years ago. Dating of those plants, using a radioactive form of carbon in the plant tissues that decays at a known rate, has given scientists an unusually precise method of determining the history of the ice sheet’s margins. Lonnie G. Thompson, the Ohio State University glaciologist whose team has worked intermittently on the Quelccaya ice cap for decades, reported the findings in a paper released online Thursday by the journal Science. Dr. Thompson and his team have expanded on previous research involving long-dead plants emerging from the melting ice at the edge of Quelccaya, a huge, flat ice cap sitting on a volcanic plain 18,000 feet above sea level.

Several years ago, the team reported on plants that had been exposed near a meltwater lake. Chemical analysis showed them to be about 4,700 years old, proving that the ice cap had reached its smallest extent in nearly five millenniums. In the new research, a thousand feet of additional melting has exposed plants that laboratory analysis shows to be about 6,300 years old. The simplest interpretation, Dr. Thompson said, is that ice that accumulated over approximately 1,600 years melted back in no more than 25 years. “If any time in the last 6,000 years these plants had been exposed for any five-year period, they would have decayed”, Dr. Thompson said. “That tells us the ice cap had to be there 6,000 years ago”. Global warming, which scientists say is being caused primarily by the human release of greenhouse gases, is having its largest effects at high latitudes and high altitudes. Sitting at high elevation in the tropics, the Quelccaya ice cap appears to be extremely sensitive to the temperature changes, several scientists said. Throughout the Andes, glaciers are now melting so rapidly that scientists have grown deeply concerned about water supplies for the people living there. Glacial meltwater is essential for helping Andean communities get through the dry season.

 

[skookerasbil]

font isnt big enought s0n........I need binoculars to see that font!!!


Oh ps......evidently, nobody is giving a rats ass about this anymore. But dont take my word for it.........from todays REALCLEARENERGY


http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2013/04/05/surprised-green-tech-investments-fell-in-q1/?ss=business%3Aenergy

 

[skookerasbil]

US coal exports are at record highs by the way..........


RealClearEnergy - US Coal Exports Surge Again



The world doesnt care about ice from 4,700 years ago.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Don't worry RollingThunder. Scooter-Ass-Bill is always going on about how nobody cares about science. Never talks about the science, just claims that no one cares about it. And somehow he feels that's justified.

I think we're a long ways away from seeing any serious long-lasting effects, but I'm glad there are people working on it.

 

[boedicca]

Personally, I'm very happy not living in an Ice Age. Global Warming been Berry Berry Good to Me.

Just sayin'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anthropogenic global warming is rapidly melting most of the world's mountain glaciers. This threatens the water supplies for billions of people and also threatens the irrigation water supplies for large agricultural regions. The loss of these mountain glaciers will almost certainly result in great suffering and mass starvation within the next few decades. Regional conflicts over shrinking water supplies are probable in a number of areas around the world, as Pentagon reports have warned.

Here's the latest scientific study of just one of those disappearing glaciers that highlights just how fast these changes are occurring.

In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years
The New York Times
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: April 4, 2013
(excerpts)
Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance. The evidence comes from a remarkable find at the margins of the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru, the world’s largest tropical ice sheet. Rapid melting there in the modern era is uncovering plants that were locked in a deep freeze when the glacier advanced many thousands of years ago. Dating of those plants, using a radioactive form of carbon in the plant tissues that decays at a known rate, has given scientists an unusually precise method of determining the history of the ice sheet’s margins. Lonnie G. Thompson, the Ohio State University glaciologist whose team has worked intermittently on the Quelccaya ice cap for decades, reported the findings in a paper released online Thursday by the journal Science. Dr. Thompson and his team have expanded on previous research involving long-dead plants emerging from the melting ice at the edge of Quelccaya, a huge, flat ice cap sitting on a volcanic plain 18,000 feet above sea level.

Several years ago, the team reported on plants that had been exposed near a meltwater lake. Chemical analysis showed them to be about 4,700 years old, proving that the ice cap had reached its smallest extent in nearly five millenniums. In the new research, a thousand feet of additional melting has exposed plants that laboratory analysis shows to be about 6,300 years old. The simplest interpretation, Dr. Thompson said, is that ice that accumulated over approximately 1,600 years melted back in no more than 25 years. “If any time in the last 6,000 years these plants had been exposed for any five-year period, they would have decayed”, Dr. Thompson said. “That tells us the ice cap had to be there 6,000 years ago”. Global warming, which scientists say is being caused primarily by the human release of greenhouse gases, is having its largest effects at high latitudes and high altitudes. Sitting at high elevation in the tropics, the Quelccaya ice cap appears to be extremely sensitive to the temperature changes, several scientists said. Throughout the Andes, glaciers are now melting so rapidly that scientists have grown deeply concerned about water supplies for the people living there. Glacial meltwater is essential for helping Andean communities get through the dry season.

How long did it take the mile of ice over Chicago to melt?

 

[RollingThunder]

How long did it take the mile of ice over Chicago to melt?

Quite a while, probably. So what?

What does that have to do with the human caused abrupt warming trend the world is currently experiencing?

Orbital cycles have caused the beginning and ending of the periods of deep glaciation, like when Chicago was covered by ice sheets, that have alternated with somewhat warmer interglacial periods, like the one we're in now, over and over again during the two and a half million year extent of the major Ice Age the world has been in since the start of the Pleistocene epoch.

These orbital cycles have nothing to do with the current warming.

The world scientific community is quite clear on the fact that the current abrupt warming trend is being caused by the 40% (and still rising) increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that human activities has produced.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not to mention the 250% rise in CH4. That gas, in a ten year period, is about 70 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. So a 1 ppm gain in it is equal to a 70 ppm gain in CO2. And we have gained over 1 ppm CH4 in the last 150 years. That means that, in reality, we have already exceeded the 450 ppm CO2 level that the scientists have been warning us about.

 

[boedicca]

Which scientists are warning us About That?

Michael Mann? LOL

 

[asterism]

How long did it take the mile of ice over Chicago to melt?

Quite a while, probably. So what?

What does that have to do with the human caused abrupt warming trend the world is currently experiencing?

Orbital cycles have caused the beginning and ending of the periods of deep glaciation, like when Chicago was covered by ice sheets, that have alternated with somewhat warmer interglacial periods, like the one we're in now, over and over again during the two and a half million year extent of the major Ice Age the world has been in since the start of the Pleistocene epoch.

These orbital cycles have nothing to do with the current warming.

The world scientific community is quite clear on the fact that the current abrupt warming trend is being caused by the 40% (and still rising) increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that human activities has produced.

Not to mention the 250% rise in CH4. That gas, in a ten year period, is about 70 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. So a 1 ppm gain in it is equal to a 70 ppm gain in CO2. And we have gained over 1 ppm CH4 in the last 150 years. That means that, in reality, we have already exceeded the 450 ppm CO2 level that the scientists have been warning us about.

So if there is a direct correlation why has the warming stalled while the concentrations of those gasses has continued to skyrocket?

This is not what was predicted by the models.

 

[Katzndogz]

Warmists will come up with ANYTHING to support their lies.

List of expanding glaciers

ARGENTINA
Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Patagonia,
is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation,
30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile,
is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water.

 

[boedicca]

Global Warming Supporters fear change. They want everything to stay static.

 

[mamooth]

What a dumb, meaningless statement. But then, you do need some excuse to ignore the evidence.

Sea levels have been slowly rising since the end of the little ice age, as the glaciers that expanded during the little ice age slowly retreated over the following centuries. But what we're seeing now is something different, a fast retreat of most glaciers and accelerating sea level rise. And that's due to the ongoing rise in temperatures. Denialists insanely keep trying to deny temps are rising, but they're looking ever kookier with that claim.

Okay, only half of them deny temps are rising. The other half says the world is warming, but it's a natural cycle. Actually, the same people flipflop between "no warming!" and "warming is natural!" from post to post. You'd think they'd try to come up with one consistent story and stick with it, being it would make them appear less ridiculous.

 

[boedicca]

What a dumb, meaningless statement. But then, you do need some excuse to ignore the evidence.

Sea levels have been slowly rising since the end of the little ice age, as the glaciers that expanded during the little ice age slowly retreated over the following centuries. But what we're seeing now is something different, a fast retreat of most glaciers and accelerating sea level rise. And that's due to the ongoing rise in temperatures. Denialists insanely keep trying to deny temps are rising, but they're looking ever kookier with that claim.

Okay, only half of them deny temps are rising. The other half says the world is warming, but it's a natural cycle. Actually, the same people flipflop between "no warming!" and "warming is natural!" from post to post. You'd think they'd try to come up with one consistent story and stick with it, being it would make them appear less ridiculous.

Actually, it's you AGW whackjobs that ignore the evidence and instead substitute computer models to generate fake stats.

 

[RollingThunder]

Warmists will come up with ANYTHING to support their lies.

List of expanding glaciers

ARGENTINA
Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Patagonia,
is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation,
30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile,
is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water.

Denier cult dingbats will cherry-pick the evidence to support their delusions....endlessly.

A small fraction of the world's glaciers are growing and the vast majority are shrinking.

Looking first at the example you chose....

Perito Moreno Glacier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Perito Moreno Glacier is a glacier located in the Los Glaciares National Park in south west Santa Cruz province, Argentina. The 250 km2 (97 sq mi) ice formation, and 30 km (19 mi) in length, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice Field located in the Andes system shared with Chile. The Perito Moreno Glacier is one of only three Patagonian glaciers that is growing. The reason remains debated by glaciologists.[1][2]


Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures
UNEP
There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe undermining the ability to provide precise early warning for countries and populations at risk. If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century.


World's glaciers melting at accelerated pace, leading scientists say
The Guardian
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
20 January 2010
(excerpts)
From the Alps to the Andes, the world's glaciers are retreating at an accelerated pace. Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, said there is strong evidence from a variety of sources of significant melting of glaciers - from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes, and the icefields of Antarctica because of a warming climate. Ice is also disappearing at a faster rate in recent decades, he said. "It is not any single glacier", he said. "It is very clear that these glaciers are behaving in a similar fashion". Thompson, in a conference call with reporters, said only about 800 of the 46,000 glaciers in the Himalayas are being monitored by scientists. Data from those under observation suggests that 95% of glaciers are in retreat, but it is still unclear how much mass the glaciers are losing without knowing the depth of the affected places. But there was evidence gathered from a variety of sources that there has been significant melting of glaciers - from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes and the icefields of Antarctica - and that the rate of ice loss was accelerating. "Those changes - the acceleration of the retreat of the glaciers and the fact that it is a global response - is the concerning part of all this. It is not any single glacier", he said

Scientists now had evidence collected over a long period of that decline from samples of the ice core and even collections of plants from mountains that were left ice-free for the first time in more than 5,000 years, Thompson said. The World Glacier Monitoring Service shows a similar picture. In a 2005 survey of 442 glaciers, 398 - or 90% - were retreating, 18 were stationary and 26 were advancing. Glacier melt is also threatening water supplies, the UCS said, pointing to a 2008 study in the Himalayas which showed less water flowing from the glaciers to the great rivers such as the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra that sustain the Indian subcontinent. Thompson, who has been studying glaciers in the Andes for more than 30 years, said he had watched the loss in his own lifetime. A number of the region's glaciers have disappeared. Venezuela, which had six glaciers when he first began as a graduate student in the early 1970s, now has only two small ice masses which Thompson thought would be gone within ten years. An Andean glacier that had been melting at a pace of six metres a year 40 years ago is now disappearing at a rate of 60 metres a year, he said.

 

[SSDD]

So you are saying that if we go back 7000 years, to around the time of the holocene optimum...there would have been no ice? Interesting. So the melting isn't unprecedented or unusual in the grand scheme of things.

You can see the spike on this graph at about the time your ice melted.

If you look at that graph all the way back to its earliest dates, you see that the present warming isn't even a blip on the screen.

 

[depotoo]

Himalayan glaciers growing despite global warming - Telegraph

Catalyst: Growing Glaciers - ABC TV Science

Record snowfall in HP revives 2,000 glaciers - Times Of India

World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://www.wgms.ch/downloads/MBW_Tarfala_summary_report.pdf
Background
Changes in glacier mass are key element of glacier monitoring, providing important information for assessing climatic changes, water resources, and sea level changes (Kaser et al. 2006; Zemp et al. 2009). The available dataset of in-situ glacier mass balance measurements covers the past six decades (WGMS 2008). The majority of these data series consists of just a few observation years and most results are reported without quantitative error bars. However, there are a dozen mass balance programmes with continuous observations dating back to 1960 or earlier (Zemp et al. 2009). Combined with decadal geodetic surveys, these long-term measurement series provide a unique opportunity for a re-analysis of the mass balance series and a quantitative assessment of related uncertainties (e.g. Andreassen et al. 2012, Cogley 2009, Escher-Vetter et al. 2009, Fischer 2010, 2011, Huss et al. 2009, Koblet et al. 2010, Nuth and Kääb 2011, Rolstad et al. 2009, Thibert et al. 2008, Zemp et al. 2010)...

Monday, 9th July 2012, started with an introductory talk by Michael Zemp on the workshop goals and agenda. He emphasized that the workshop aims at providing best practices for the re-analysis of glaciological and geodetic mass balance series, and quantifying the related uncertainties. In view of the increasing number of long-term mass balance series and the fact that there are several glaciers where the geodetic and glaciological results largely diverge, there is strong need to address the questions raised above. For global analyses (e.g. Kaser et al. 2006), still simple uncertainty assumptions are made. The few in-depth re-analyses (using heterogeneous approaches) show the importance of
• homogenizing both geodetic and glaciological mass balance series,
• quantifying both stochastic and systematic error uncertainties, and
• an integrative uncertainty assessment.
The resultant goals of the workshop are thus based on the following research questions:
• Which are the sources of potential errors of glacier mass balance measurements?
• How are these potential errors considered by glaciological and geodetic methods?
• How can the related uncertainties be quantified?

 

[RollingThunder]

So you are saying that if we go back 7000 years, to around the time of the holocene optimum...there would have been no ice?

No, you pathetic retard, nobody is saying that. Mountain glaciers have existed all throughout the Holocene, including the early Holocene Thermal Maximum period, but they responded to the warmer temperatures back then by retreating or shrinking, just as they are responding now to the warmer temperatures today. The world's glaciers are shrinking and disappearing more and faster now than they did during the Holocene Thermal Maximum period.

Interesting. So the melting isn't unprecedented or unusual in the grand scheme of things.

Prior to the start of the Ice Age 2.6 million years ago, the Earth was largely ice free from pole to pole. During the current Ice Age there have been many transitions from periods of major glaciation to warmer interglacial periods, like the one we're in now. So obviously the formation and melting of mountain glaciers, and indeed the entire polar ice caps, is not "unprecedented or unusual in the grand scheme of things". The difference is that previous episodes of glacial melting and growth had physical causes tied to natural orbital cycles, while this current warming that is producing this extremely rapid glacial melting has no such links to the orbital cycles and is actually being caused by the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind's activities have created, as the world scientific community has affirmed.

You can see the spike on this graph at about the time your ice melted.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....interesting graph....even given the fact that Vostok ice cores don't always give a clear picture of conditions worldwide....you can clearly see that CO2 levels started increasing about 18,000 years ago significantly prior to the sharp rise in temperatures that marked the beginning of the ending of the previous period of major glaciation, or the end of the last ice age, in common parlance.

If you look at that graph all the way back to its earliest dates, you see that the present warming isn't even a blip on the screen.

If you have the brains, which SSoooDDuuumb completely lacks, to actually read the graphs (which are exactly the same graph only one goes back further in time) you would notice that the chart reads "Vostok Ice Cores 50,000 - 2,500 years ago", so the present warming isn't even shown.

You are such an idiot, SSooooDDuuumb, it is a wonder that you can even turn your computer on, let alone know how to type. I hope you learn to actually read someday.

 

[SSDD]

No, you pathetic retard, nobody is saying that. Mountain glaciers have existed all throughout the Holocene, including the early Holocene Thermal Maximum period, but they responded to the warmer temperatures back then by retreating or shrinking, just as they are responding now to the warmer temperatures today. The world's glaciers are shrinking and disappearing more and faster now than they did during the Holocene Thermal Maximum period.

Poor thunder...the eternal inferior child trying so hard to get some respect but completely unaware of how to do it.

Your article said that the plants being exposed were 6000 years old or so. That says that at that time, there was no ice in the area being exposed....melt the ice back further and older plants will be exposed indicating that the ice hasn't always been there and melting isn't anything unusual.

As to your claims of how fast they are shrinking, your claims are baseless. The holocene optimum came on faster than the present warming and the temperatures were quite a bit higher. Unless you are suggesting that the laws of physics have changed in the past 6000 years.

Prior to the start of the Ice Age 2.6 million years ago, the Earth was largely ice free from pole to pole.

That being the case...and clearly the earth is in the process of coming out of that deep ice age, what is it that terrifies you so much about melting ice. We know that the earth was a garden prior to the decent into the still continuing ice age..why does getting back to those balmy temperatures scare you so much?

The difference is that previous episodes of glacial melting and growth had physical causes tied to natural orbital cycles, while this current warming that is producing this extremely rapid glacial melting has no such links to the orbital cycles and is actually being caused by the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind's activities have created, as the world scientific community has affirmed.

First, there isn't a single bit of observed evidence that the present temperatures have anything at all to do with CO2. Second, we know that at the end of the 20th century, the output from the sun was at its highest for the past 11,500 years. Interesting that you would believe in an unproven greenhouse effect coming out of computer models over actual observed data.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....interesting graph....even given the fact that Vostok ice cores don't always give a clear picture of conditions worldwide....you can clearly see that CO2 levels started increasing about 18,000 years ago significantly prior to the sharp rise in temperatures that marked the beginning of the ending of the previous period of major glaciation, or the end of the last ice age, in common parlance.

I can also see on that graph that that instance where CO2 increased before the temperature was an anomoly and CO2 followed the temperature rise in nearly every other instance. Why would you ignore that fact? What do you suppose caused that rise 18000 years ago? As you said, the record isn't always accurate and considering the normal trends, it is more likely that that rise in CO2 before the temperature increase is one of those inaccuracies.

 

[RollingThunder]

No, you pathetic retard, nobody is saying that. Mountain glaciers have existed all throughout the Holocene, including the early Holocene Thermal Maximum period, but they responded to the warmer temperatures back then by retreating or shrinking, just as they are responding now to the warmer temperatures today. The world's glaciers are shrinking and disappearing more and faster now than they did during the Holocene Thermal Maximum period.

Poor thunder...the eternal inferior child trying so hard to get some respect but completely unaware of how to do it.

Your article said that the plants being exposed were 6000 years old or so. That says that at that time, there was no ice in the area being exposed....melt the ice back further and older plants will be exposed indicating that the ice hasn't always been there and melting isn't anything unusual.

As to your claims of how fast they are shrinking, your claims are baseless. The holocene optimum came on faster than the present warming and the temperatures were quite a bit higher. Unless you are suggesting that the laws of physics have changed in the past 6000 years.

Prior to the start of the Ice Age 2.6 million years ago, the Earth was largely ice free from pole to pole.

That being the case...and clearly the earth is in the process of coming out of that deep ice age, what is it that terrifies you so much about melting ice. We know that the earth was a garden prior to the decent into the still continuing ice age..why does getting back to those balmy temperatures scare you so much?

The difference is that previous episodes of glacial melting and growth had physical causes tied to natural orbital cycles, while this current warming that is producing this extremely rapid glacial melting has no such links to the orbital cycles and is actually being caused by the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind's activities have created, as the world scientific community has affirmed.

First, there isn't a single bit of observed evidence that the present temperatures have anything at all to do with CO2. Second, we know that at the end of the 20th century, the output from the sun was at its highest for the past 11,500 years. Interesting that you would believe in an unproven greenhouse effect coming out of computer models over actual observed data.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....interesting graph....even given the fact that Vostok ice cores don't always give a clear picture of conditions worldwide....you can clearly see that CO2 levels started increasing about 18,000 years ago significantly prior to the sharp rise in temperatures that marked the beginning of the ending of the previous period of major glaciation, or the end of the last ice age, in common parlance.

I can also see on that graph that that instance where CO2 increased before the temperature was an anomoly and CO2 followed the temperature rise in nearly every other instance. Why would you ignore that fact? What do you suppose caused that rise 18000 years ago? As you said, the record isn't always accurate and considering the normal trends, it is more likely that that rise in CO2 before the temperature increase is one of those inaccuracies.

Just more idiotic drivel and unsupported fraudulent claims from ol' SSoooDDuuuumb. His lying bullcrap got debunked again, as usual, and he's still whimpering in denial.