Year 2011 Greenland melting remains well above the (1979 – 2010) average; close-to-r

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Year 2011 Greenland melting remains well above the (1979 – 2010) average; close-to-record mass loss

M. Tedesco1, X. Fettweis2, T. Mote3 , N. Steiner1 and J. E. Box4

1) City College of New York – CUNY – NYC – USA
2) University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
3) University of Athens – Georgia – USA
4) Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Summary: Melting in Greenland in 2011 was still above the average (1979 – 2010 baseline period), exceptionally high over the west coast and reaching close-to-record simulated surface mass balance, bare ice exposure, albedo and runoff anomalies.
The melting index (e.g., the number of melting days times the area subject to melting) in 2011 estimated from spaceborne microwave observations using the approach in (Tedesco, 2007) did not break the previous record set in 2010 (e.g., Tedesco et al., 2011). However, 2011 is positioning itself 6th in terms of melting index, after 2010, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2005. An alternative approach using microwave data as well (Mote and Anderson, 2005) indicates that melt extent for the period June through August 2011 ranked third since 1979, following 2010 and 2007. Satellites data cannot produce estimates of runoff and liquid water content. However, these can be analyzed by means of models. The model used in this analysis (MAR, e.g., Tedesco et al., 2011) indicates that 2011 was comparable to the record season of 2010 with respect to runoff, surface mass balance, albedo and bare ice exposure. Strong negative surface mass balance anomalies occurred in 2011, according to MAR (e.g., the loss in 2011 and 2010 were much higher than the gained mass because of accumulation). Surface albedo simulated by MAR was consistently below or around 2 standard deviations below the mean for the period June – August (e.g., more solar radiation absorbed supporting more melting, see Figure 4 for a diagram). The bare ice area exposed during the summer of 2011 was also large with respect to the mean (close to up 3 standard deviations for the month of July), similarly to what happened in 2010.

greenland2011

close to the mass lost of 2010! Read this with a open mind!
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America


Before you insult it you need to understand that this is the yearly loss rate. This year didn't increase over 2010 rate, but still 300-500 gt is a lot of ice. This is fairly normal based on this graph to do this too.
 
Last edited:

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC

JWBooth

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
10,344
Reaction score
2,483
Points
255
Location
Texas Republic
Shit happens.

What is your answer? End all human activity, plug the volcanoes?
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
This states what Mathew just posed. How does it in any way support you, Bent?

On the recent elevation changes at the Flade Isblink Ice Cap, northern Greenland

We have used Radar Altimeter 2 (RA-2) onboard ESA's EnviSAT and Geosciences Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) onboard NASA's ICESat to map the elevation change of the Flade Isblink Ice Cap (FIIC) in northern Greenland. Based on RA-2 data we show that the mean surface elevation change of the FIIC has been near zero (0.03 ± 0.03 m/a) between fall 2002 and fall 2009. We present the elevation change rate maps and assess the elevation change rates of areas above the late summer snow line (0.09 ± 0.04 m/a) and below it (&#8722;0.16 ± 0.05 m/a). The GLAS elevation change rate maps show that some outlet glaciers, previously reported to have been in a surge state, are thickening rapidly. Using the RA-2 measured average elevation change rates for different parts of the ice cap we present a mass change rate estimate of 0.0 ± 0.5 Gt/a for the FIIC. We compare the annual elevation changes with surface mass balance (SMB) estimates from a regional atmospheric climate model RACMO2. We find a strong correlation between the two (R = 0.94 and P < 0.002), suggesting that the surface elevation changes of the FIIC are mainly driven by net SMB. The correlation of modeled net SMB and measured elevation change is strong in the southern areas of the FIIC (R = 0.97 and P < 0.0005), but insignificant in the northern areas (R = 0.38 and P = 0.40). This is likely due to higher variability of glacier flow in the north relative to the south.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Bent, you seem to be just throwing scientific articles up there, irregardless of what they state. What does this have to do with your statement concerning the supposedly falling sea levels?

http://www.clim-past.net/7/543/2011/cp-7-543-2011.pdf

Abstract. We investigate the interannual and decadal variability
of the North Atlantic atmospheric blocking frequency
and distribution in connection with long-term observational
and proxy records from southwestern Greenland. It is shown
that warm (cold) conditions in southwestern Greenland during
winter are related with high (low) blocking activity in
the Greenland-Scandinavian region. The pattern of winter
temperature-blocking variability is more complex than the
blocking pattern associated to the North Atlantic Oscillation
(NAO). We find, furthermore, that a North Atlantic blocking
index is significantly correlated with seasonally resolved
stable isotope records from Greenland ice cores. Both suggest
a possible reconstruction of blocking variability in this
region. During summer, high (low) blocking activity in the
Euro-Atlantic region is associated with cold (warm) conditions
in southwestern Greenland. We conclude that historical
temperature records, as well as proxy data from Greenland,
can be used to obtain information related to interannual and
multidecadal variation of winter and summer blocking during
past periods.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,392
Reaction score
7,252
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Well, obviously, Bent, you never read a single one of the abstracts of these articles, just threw them up to look as if you had some science to support your nonsense. LOL

https://events.icecube.wisc.edu/indico/contributionDisplay.py?contribId=19&sessionId=7&confId=34

A new Greenland ice core has been drilled. The first results from the NEEM ice core are presented and then combined with results from other deep ice cores from the Greenland Ice Sheet.

All of the ice cores drilled through the Greenland Ice Sheets have been analyzed, and the results show that all contain ice from the previous warm Eemian period near the base. Is it thus clear that the Greenland Ice Sheet has existed for over 120,000 years, going back to the previous warm period, when it was 5 deg C warmer over Greenland?

The difference between Eemian and Holocene stable oxygen isotope values has been combined with an ice sheet flow model constrained by the ice core results and internal radio echo sounding layers, to estimate the volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet 120,000 years ago.

The results show that South Greenland has not been ice-free during the Eemian period, and that the sea level contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet has been 1 to 2 meters.
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
why should he read your nonsense? You don't...
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Try reading for comprehension rocks. If you still don't get it, then I will explain it to you. Perhaps you simply need public humiliation at my hands. Is that it?
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
a while back I posted up an article on an ice core drill in Alaska. it didnt give the right results, the glacier was only about 2000 years old. what happened to the info? it simply didnt get publishedother than the preliminary report required by law. this type of thing is a lot more common than people think. Hughes' grad student updated one of the european tree ring data sets and earned her doctorate (Hughes signed the forms). unfortunately the new results dont match the old ones. what happened? the new data were buried. gone. and Hughes continues to use the old data even though he knows there is new info. Hughes is the H in MBH98, 99 by the way. there are other examples of this and there has been numerous instances of climate scientist flatly refusing to release their data to outsiders trying to replicate the results.

anyways, in one measured glacier in Alaska the Roman Warm Period was warm enough that there was no glacier there. is this proof that it was just as warm then as now? no but it is indicative that climate warms and cools and that the world doesnt stop spinning when some ice disappears.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top