meteorologist Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s_greenland_glacier_retreat/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Looks like this is based on http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html So we can avoid all the peer review debate and look at the paper without distractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaWx Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 If the warming really started around 1840, that would warrant at least suspicion that the more active sun has been a significant player in warming. That's because the Dalton minimum had ended not too much earlier than this. IF that were true, then that would seem to favor upcoming cooling assuming a continued relatively quiet sun in relation to most of the cycles since the Dalton min. Food for thought at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Meteorologist - thanks for the link to the Register article. Jonger - thanks for the link to the research paper the article is largely based on. It's almost always best to get info like this straight from the source. After reading the article and the paper's abstract I confess I don't see anything earthshaking or contrary to mainstream AGW theory. From the abstract: Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming. Regional warm spell over Greenland in the 1930s - check Greenland glaciers retreated during 1930s warm spell - check Greenland glaciers retreating during current global warming - check Looking at Figure 2 from the paper, it is clear that more glaciers were retreating during the 2000 - 2010 period than during the 1933 - 1943 period. True, some glaciers retreated as fast in the '30s as they are doing today - but so what? One would expect some natural variation in the rates of retreat. A more relevant metric for predicting sea level rise would be - how have the movement rates for the Greenland glaciers changed since the 1930s? That would help us understand how fast ice is moving from the interior to the coasts. For me, the most interesting question raised by the reseach is why are marine terminated glaciers retreating faster today than they did in the past? Higher SSTs? Increased melting? A final point - the Register article predictably runs off the rails in the next to last paragraph when it claims that the Sun is the major influence on Arctic and that the Industrial Revolution began in 1870 (in the linked article). For those of you who have forgotten your history, the Industrial Revolution began in 1750, Wikipedia has a good article on the IR. The Register is either very sloppy with its fact-checking, or is trying to deceive its readers. Either way it is hardly a credible source for climate info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Here's a report on a May 4 paper in "Science" via Science News magazine. It focuses more on the past 10 years and suggests just a moderate acceleration is likely in the future. http://www.sciencene...nland_glaciers_ Here is the direct paper link in "Science" http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6081/576.abstract?sid=970f386f-5b70-4773-a6e5-4cc7cb0fac07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Here's a report on a May 4 paper in "Science" via Science News magazine. It focuses more on the past 10 years and suggests just a moderate acceleration is likely in the future. http://www.sciencene...nland_glaciers_ Here is the direct paper link in "Science" http://www.sciencema...e5-4cc7cb0fac07 I think it's started already. 2010 dropped about 600,000,000,000 GT of Ice Mass. With almost no recovery to 2011. Then 2011, which actually had a shorter melt season dropped 500,000,000,000 billion. This year is off to the races already. http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r02c02.2012154.terra.250m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I think it's started already. 2010 dropped about 600,000,000,000 GT of Ice Mass. With almost no recovery to 2011. Then 2011, which actually had a shorter melt season dropped 500,000,000,000 billion. This year is off to the races already. http://lance-modis.e...2154.terra.250m Um, Friv, I think you meant to say that 2010 dropped 600 GT, and that 2011 dropped 500 billion tons. Or you may have meant to say 2010 dropped 600,000,000,000 tons and 2011 dropped 500,000,000,000 tons. (Unless you're a government economist, orders of magnitude are important.) In any event I agree that the Greenland melt seems to be accelerating. Not surprising given the increase in the number of melt days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 No coincidence that the NAO has gone negative quite a bit in the last 8-10 years as well. There's probably a relationship to that and explains at least part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Yeah, my bad, I was still sleep walking at that point. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html That is for 2011, 2010 was worse. 2012 is already started much faster than 2011 and closer to 2010. Albedo changes are tremendous on the Western edge. We do not have much more wiggle room before we see Albedo's causing a dramatic upward swing in ice loss. The Western Shores of Greenland already shows huge melt taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 No coincidence that the NAO has gone negative quite a bit in the last 8-10 years as well. There's probably a relationship to that and explains at least part of that. Nope 100% GHG nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Nope 100% GHG nothing else. have you considered the warming upper latitudes may be the trigger for more blocking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 have you considered the warming upper latitudes may be the trigger for more blocking? No i would have to disagree the NAO index has been shown to have negative and positive running phases. You can see below 50-64 is mostly dominated by negative NAO 78-95 you can see more positive dominant phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 No wonder why the 1990's winters sucked for snow around here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 No i would have to disagree the NAO index has been shown to have negative and positive running phases. You can see below 50-64 is mostly dominated by negative NAO 78-95 you can see more positive dominant phase. There is no doubt about that. I am just saying the Ice retreat/sst warming in the Region could have an impact on where the blocking sets up. The area's of largest melt are warm but not insanely warm. It seems a cumulative affect is taking place here. Something is pretty out of place to cause 600 and 500 GT of ice mass loss with those temp anomalys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.