Reservoir found under Greenland's snow. What it means for shrinking glaciers.

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,752
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Reservoir found under Greenland's snow. What it means for shrinking glaciers.

Reservoir found under Greenland's snow. What it means for shrinking glaciers. - CSMonitor.com
The water in the huge reservoir remains liquid year-round, and researchers say it could help them estimate how Greenland's rapidly melting ice sheet will respond to global warming.

Scientists have discovered a vast reservoir of fresh water captured in layers of old snow buried near the surface of Greenland's vast ice sheet.

The reservoir, located in southeastern Greenland, is similar to a subsurface aquifer found on land. Its water remains liquid all year and covers an area about half the size of New York State....
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,598
Reaction score
9,582
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
And yet you people REFUSE to prove your claim. Point us to the experiment conducted to prove CO2 caused any rise in temperature, one that can and has been repeated. Explain how there has been no rise in global temperatures the last 15 years even though CO2 has steadily risen? Provide an experiment to prove what ever crap claim you make, again one that has been repeated?
 

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,804
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
And yet you people REFUSE to prove your claim. Point us to the experiment conducted to prove CO2 caused any rise in temperature, one that can and has been repeated. Explain how there has been no rise in global temperatures the last 15 years even though CO2 has steadily risen? Provide an experiment to prove what ever crap claim you make, again one that has been repeated?
This is why I'm a "fence sitter" on the issue. I have no compelling reason to believe or disbelieve either of you.

My gut tells me there is much more in the works than C02 and fossil fuels (IF those two are even a "cause").

The U.S. has already gone above and beyond what could be reasonably expected in regards to curbing emissions. Enough is enough. I'm sick and tired of attacks on industry and business and, ultimately, jobs.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,218
Reaction score
13,806
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
Yeah --- that massive 0.6degC increase that you've seen during your lifetime. About the same effect as the ocean natural cycles. THAT'S how much you've witnessed. And all hell's breaking loose because of it.

Glaciers were doomed millenia ago.. The 1degC diff hardly matters.. Means they are gone in 80 years rather than 120....
 

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,804
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
Why has no one ever let out so much as a "peep" as to agriculture's contributions to environmental degradation? Anyone?
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
And yet you people REFUSE to prove your claim. Point us to the experiment conducted to prove CO2 caused any rise in temperature, one that can and has been repeated. Explain how there has been no rise in global temperatures the last 15 years even though CO2 has steadily risen? Provide an experiment to prove what ever crap claim you make, again one that has been repeated?
How about you learn some basic science first?
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Why has no one ever let out so much as a "peep" as to agriculture's contributions to environmental degradation? Anyone?
Someone must have let out a good deal more than a peep. You've heard about it.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
Yeah --- that massive 0.6degC increase that you've seen during your lifetime. About the same effect as the ocean natural cycles. THAT'S how much you've witnessed. And all hell's breaking loose because of it.

Glaciers were doomed millenia ago.. The 1degC diff hardly matters.. Means they are gone in 80 years rather than 120....
Really?



I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the falling temperatures under Marcott's blue there match nicely with TSI.
 
Last edited:
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,752
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Greenland ice stores liquid water year-round

Researchers at the University of Utah have discovered a new aquifer in the Greenland Ice Sheet that holds liquid water all year long in the otherwise perpetually frozen winter landscape. The aquifer is extensive, covering 27,000 square miles.
The reservoir is known as a "perennial firn aquifer" because water persists within the firn – layers of snow and ice that don't melt for at least one season. Researchers believe it figures significantly in understanding the contribution of snowmelt and ice melt to rising sea levels.

The study was published online Sunday, Dec. 22, in the journal Nature Geoscience.

"Of the current sea level rise, the Greenland Ice Sheet is the largest contributor – and it is melting at record levels," says Rick Forster, lead author and professor of geography at the University of Utah. "So understanding the aquifer's capacity to store water from year to year is important because it fills a major gap in the overall equation of meltwater runoff and sea levels."

Forster's team has been doing research in southeast Greenland since 2010 to measure snowfall accumulation and how it varies from year to year. The area they study covers 14 percent of southeast Greenland yet receives 32 percent of the entire ice sheet's snowfall, but there has been little data gathered.

In 2010, the team drilled core samples in three locations on the ice for analysis. Team members returned in 2011 to approximately the same area, but at lower elevation. Of the four core samples taken then, two came to the surface with liquid water pouring off the drill while the air temperatures were minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The water was found at about 33 feet below the surface at the first hole and at 82 feet in the second hole.

Read more at: Greenland ice stores liquid water year-round
 

polarbear

I eat morons
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
408
Points
140
Location
Canada
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
And yet you people REFUSE to prove your claim. Point us to the experiment conducted to prove CO2 caused any rise in temperature, one that can and has been repeated. Explain how there has been no rise in global temperatures the last 15 years even though CO2 has steadily risen? Provide an experiment to prove what ever crap claim you make, again one that has been repeated?
How about you learn some basic science first?
The same "basic science" tells you that these water reservoirs which are under 3000 or more feet of ice have nothing to do with "global warming"".

There is a limit how much ice you can pile up till you reach a pressure high enough where ice melts:
At high pressures water has a complex phase diagram with 15 known phases of ice and a number of triple points including ten whose coordinates are shown in the diagram. For example, the triple point at 251 K (−22 °C) and 210 MPa (2070 atm) corresponds to the conditions for the coexistence of ice Ih (ordinary ice), ice III and liquid water, all at equilibrium. There are also triple points for the coexistence of three solid phases, for example ice II, ice V and ice VI at 218 K (−55 °C) and 620 MPa (6120 atm).
I was under the impression you knew something about physics.
Every physics student has seen this experiment:

If 1 mm diameter wire is used, over an ice cube 50 mm wide, the area the force is exerted on is 50 mm2. This is 50×10−6 m2.
Force (in newtons) equals pressure (in pascals) multiplied by area (in square metres).
If at least 500 atm (50 MPa) is required to melt the ice, a force of (50×106 Pa)(50×10−6 m2) = 2500 N is required, a force roughly equal to the weight of 250 kg on Earth.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Greenland's ice sheet hides 100 billion tons of water | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Big surprises still hide beneath the frozen surface of snowy Greenland. Despite decades of poking and prodding by scientists, only now has the massive ice island revealed a hidden aquifer.

In southeast Greenland, more than 100 billion tons of liquid water soaks a slushy snow layer buried anywhere from 15 to 160 feet (5 to 50 meters) below the surface. This snow aquifer covers more than 27,000 square miles (70,000 square kilometers) — an area bigger than West Virginia — researchers reported on Dec. 22 in the journal Nature Geoscience.

"We thought we had an understanding of how things work in Greenland, but here is this entire storage system of water we didn't realize was there," said Richard Forster, lead study author and a glaciologist at the University of Utah.

The discovery will help scientists better understand the fate of Greenland's annual surface melt, which contributes to sea level rise. When the summer sun warms the Arctic island, a giant water world of stunning blue lakes and streams appears atop the ice. Tracking this surface runoff helps scientists account for ice lost to melting each year. Until now, researchers thought most of this water went to the ocean or refroze on the ice. Now they've found a new hiding place.

"This throws an additional complexity into the system," Forster told LiveScience.

There is enough water in the snow aquifer to raise global sea level by 0.015 inches (0.4 millimeters), according to a separate study by the same team published Nov. 30 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). Every year, Greenland adds 0.03 inches (0.7 mm) of water to global sea level rise from melting snow and ice, Forster said. [Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming]
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Airborne radar measurements revealed the lakes underneath the ice in a study by the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge.

"Our results show that subglacial lakes exist in Greenland, and that they form an important part of the ice sheet's plumbing system," said Steven Palmer, formerly with the Cambridge institute and now at the University of Exeter. "Because the way in which water moves beneath ice sheets strongly affects ice flow speeds, improved understanding of these lakes will allow us to predict more accurately how the ice sheet will respond to anticipated future warming."

The newly discovered lakes are most likely fed by melting surface water draining through cracks in the ice, and a surface lake situated nearby may replenish them during warm summers, the researchers said.

That means the lakes are part of an open system and are connected to the surface, which is different from Antarctic lakes that are most often isolated ecosystems.



Read more: Two lakes under Greenland ice sheet could affect glaciers' speed - UPI.com
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,218
Reaction score
13,806
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
Yeah --- that massive 0.6degC increase that you've seen during your lifetime. About the same effect as the ocean natural cycles. THAT'S how much you've witnessed. And all hell's breaking loose because of it.

Glaciers were doomed millenia ago.. The 1degC diff hardly matters.. Means they are gone in 80 years rather than 120....
Really?



I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the falling temperatures under Marcott's blue there match nicely with TSI.
Another skepticalscience penciled in chart eh? Nice that they took it out to 4000AD with "forecasts" only to 2100 AD.. And THAT is pure religious dogma. NOTHING on that chart could ever match reality.. Waste of time Bullwinkle...
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
All based on AGW church scripture.

CO2 does NOT drive climate, never has.

Sorry you fail once again.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.
Yeah --- that massive 0.6degC increase that you've seen during your lifetime. About the same effect as the ocean natural cycles. THAT'S how much you've witnessed. And all hell's breaking loose because of it.

Glaciers were doomed millenia ago.. The 1degC diff hardly matters.. Means they are gone in 80 years rather than 120....
Really?



I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the falling temperatures under Marcott's blue there match nicely with TSI.
The hockey stick again?

Even the IPCC has not only omitted this once, but twice now.

I guess the cultists need their dogma to keep up the propaganda.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top