Greenland 2012

[LithiaWx]

Current melt percentage.

[Snow_Miser]

Current melt percentage.

image.jpg

 

I don't think it even got to 30% with that warm period. The upcoming pattern looks far more favorable for Greenland.

[The_Global_Warmer]

According to the bad model on the DMI site.  2013 has lost more ice than 2012 so far.  Even with epic fantasy snow storms.

 

 

[LithiaWx]

According to the bad model on the DMI site. 2013 has lost more ice than 2012 so far. Even with epic fantasy snow storms.

That is not just an ice loss chart. the snows did happen.I find it odd you are cherry picking the data that fits your agenda off that model and diksmissing the data that does not fit your agenda.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The Eastern side of Greenland has seen some strong peripheral melt.

 

This is way ahead of 2012.  Probably how that model has 2013 ahead.  Even with bogus snow totals.

 

[LithiaWx]

The Eastern side of Greenland has seen some strong peripheral melt.

 

This is way ahead of 2012.  Probably how that model has 2013 ahead.  Even with bogus snow totals.

 

We are still barely outside of climo melt at this point. The next couple of months will tell the tale of 2013 melt season. The fraction we have seen so far tells us virtually nothing.

[The_Global_Warmer]

500GT will be gone at the min even if the "melt" percentage doesn't go above 30%.

 

90% of the GIS surface melt comes from less than 15% of the ice sheet.

[Snow_Miser]

Greenland melt area is falling now as the ridging continues to break up, and will be replaced by troughing. Needless to say, we didn't even come close to getting 40-50% on this map as some asserted that we would.

 

 

[icebreaker5221]

The Eastern side of Greenland has seen some strong peripheral melt.

 

This is way ahead of 2012.  Probably how that model has 2013 ahead.  Even with bogus snow totals.

 

 

 

The region that saw heavy snow and the region that saw significant melt are in separate locations.  The area that did receive snow is quite a bit whiter near the bottom of that satellite image. 

 

Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that Greenland can still see significant snowfall in June?  It doesn't contradict the fact that, overall, melt has exceeded gains this month. 

[SVT450R]

Jet Stream Changes Cause Climatically Exceptional Greenland Ice Sheet Melt

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130617111255.htm

June 17, 2013 — Research from the University of Sheffield has shown that unusual changes in atmospheric jet stream circulation caused the exceptional surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) in summer 2012.

 

An international team led by Professor Edward Hanna from the University of Sheffield's Department of Geography used a computer model simulation (called SnowModel) and satellite data to confirm a record surface melting of the GrIS for at least the last 50 years -- when on 11 July 2012, more than 90 percent of the ice-sheet surface melted. This far exceeded the previous surface melt extent record of 52 percent in 2010.

The team also analysed weather station data from on top of and around the GrIS, largely collected by the Danish Meteorological Institute but also by US programmes, which showed that several new high Greenland temperature records were set in summer 2012.

The research, published today in the International Journal of Climatology, clearly demonstrates that the record surface melting of the GrIS was mainly caused by highly unusual atmospheric circulation and jet stream changes, which were also responsible for last summer's unusually wet weather in England.

The analysis shows that ocean temperatures and Arctic sea-ice cover were relatively unimportant factors in causing the extra Greenland melt.

Professor Hanna said: "The GrIS is a highly sensitive indicator of regional and global climate change, and has been undergoing rapid warming and mass loss during the last 5-20 years. Much attention has been given to the NASA announcement of record surface melting of the GrIS in mid-July 2012. This event was unprecedented in the satellite record of observations dating back to the 1970s and probably unlikely to have occurred previously for well over a century.

"Our research found that a 'heat dome' of warm southerly winds over the ice sheet led to widespread surface melting. These jet stream changes over Greenland do not seem to be well captured in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model predictions of climate change, and this may indicate a deficiency in these models. According to our current understanding, the unusual atmospheric circulation and consequent warm conditions of summer 2012 do not appear to be climatically representative of future 'average' summers predicted later this century.

"Taken together, our present results strongly suggest that the main forcing of the extreme GrIS surface melt in July 2012 was atmospheric, linked with changes in the summer North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Greenland Blocking Index (GBI, a high pressure system centred over Greenland) and polar jet stream which favoured southerly warm air advection along the western coast.

"The next five-10 years will reveal whether or not 2012 was a rare event resulting from the natural variability of the NAO or part of an emerging pattern of new extreme high melt years. Because such atmospheric, and resulting GrIS surface climate, changes are not well projected by the current generation of global climate models, it is currently very hard to predict future changes in Greenland climate. Yet it is crucial to understand such changes much better if we are to have any hope of reliably predicting future changes in GrIS mass balance, which is likely to be a dominant contributor to global sea-level change over the next 100-1000 years."

[The_Global_Warmer]

The region that saw heavy snow and the region that saw significant melt are in separate locations.  The area that did receive snow is quite a bit whiter near the bottom of that satellite image. 

 

Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that Greenland can still see significant snowfall in June?  It doesn't contradict the fact that, overall, melt has exceeded gains this month. 

 

 

It's not hard to except.

 

I like truth.

 

I said you can see the strip of fresh snow where the Mtns shoot up to near 2000M within 10 miles of the ice sheet edge.  But the model showed the most snow falling south and North of that spot.  100MM+ over three days.  Satellite images show that didn't happen. Hence the model is wrong.

 

Which is not surprising. Last year Greenland had a net loss of 527GT of ice mass.  This model says GIS is gaining mass but the calving glaciers cause the 527GT.  Which completely absurd.

[Jonger]

From the Wikipedia page on Greenland, it says that at our current rate, Greenland will melt in 1,500 years. Considering fossil fuels will be a footnote in history within 50 years, how is it really that relevant. I'm just asking.

Land ice isn't quite the threat that arctic ice is? Is this just for proxy information on warming?

Also, what was the estimated pre-industrial melt rate?

[LithiaWx]

It's not hard to except.

I like truth.

I said you can see the strip of fresh snow where the Mtns shoot up to near 2000M within 10 miles of the ice sheet edge. But the model showed the most snow falling south and North of that spot. 100MM+ over three days. Satellite images show that didn't happen. Hence the model is wrong.

Which is not surprising. Last year Greenland had a net loss of 527GT of ice mass. This model says GIS is gaining mass but the calving glaciers cause the 527GT. Which completely absurd.

the model isnt showing Greenland gaining mass as a whole. what in the world are you seeing? you should think about reading more and posting less in this thread.

[PhillipS]

From the Wikipedia page on Greenland, it says that at our current rate, Greenland will melt in 1,500 years. Considering fossil fuels will be a footnote in history within 50 years, how is it really that relevant. I'm just asking. Land ice isn't quite the threat that arctic ice is? Is this just for proxy information on warming? Also, what was the estimated pre-industrial melt rate?

 

The important caveat about that 1,500 year figure is "at our current rate".  We know from observations that the rate is melting is accelerating so a more realistic value might be 500 years.  Still a long time but a period well within the residency of the CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere today.  And that's for the full 6 meters or so of melt - we are already seeing rising sea levels and their consequences.  It will only get worse from this point on.

 

As for the pre-industrial melt rate - Greenland had a positive or equilibrium ice sheet mass balance until around the mid 20th century.  On example of how fast snow was accumulating is the group of planes (1 B-17 and several P-38s) that crashed on the Greenland ice sheet in 1942 when their ferry flight encountered bad weather.  By the time recovery was begun in 1992, 260 feet of snow had accumulated.  A shaft was melted to the planes and one P-38 was recovered, rebuilt, and is now touring air shows as Glacier Girl.  

[The_Global_Warmer]

the model isnt showing Greenland gaining mass as a whole. what in the world are you seeing? you should think about reading more and posting less in this thread.

 

The surface mass balance is calculated over a year from September 1st to August 31st (the end of the melt season). The figure to the right shows the sum of all the daily changes from September 1st up to today. Next year on September 1st the map will be reset and we start over. This accumulated map illustrates how much the surface mass balance has contributed in each point across the ice sheet. 

The figure below shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

 

 

 

 

 

Gee, look's to me like the red line doesn't reach zero for the 2012 GIS melt season.  Look's like this model show's GIS gaining land ice mass. 

 

You so proudly try and trash me and yet you don't even know what you're looking at.

 

And if you can not comprehend what I said:

 

but the calving glaciers cause the 527GT.  Which completely absurd.

Which is not surprising. Last year Greenland had a net loss of 527GT of ice mass.  This model says GIS is gaining mass

 

 

It's well documented that iceberg calving on GIS is not causing this incredible imbalance.

 

Grace also show's GIS isn't gaining 500GT worth of snow during the cold season.

[LithiaWx]

Gee, look's to me like the red line doesn't reach zero for the 2012 GIS melt season. Look's like this model show's GIS gaining land ice mass.

You so proudly try and trash me and yet you don't even know what you're looking at.

And if you can not comprehend what I said:

It's well documented that iceberg calving on GIS is not causing this incredible imbalance.

Grace also show's GIS isn't gaining 500GT worth of snow during the cold season.

The graph isnt suggesting that greenland is gaining mass as a whole.

[skierinvermont]

From the Wikipedia page on Greenland, it says that at our current rate, Greenland will melt in 1,500 years. Considering fossil fuels will be a footnote in history within 50 years, how is it really that relevant. I'm just asking. Land ice isn't quite the threat that arctic ice is? Is this just for proxy information on warming? Also, what was the estimated pre-industrial melt rate?

 

The current range of estimates point to Greenland melting in the next 200-500 years. And I believe the supply of fossil fuels is closer to 100 years. The amount of GHGs likely to be released in the next 30-50 years are likely to raise temperatures high enough to melt Greenland entirely. Because the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is several thousand years, that warming will be very hard to reverse. 

[ORH_wxman]

The current range of estimates point to Greenland melting in the next 200-500 years. And I believe the supply of fossil fuels is closer to 100 years. The amount of GHGs likely to be released in the next 30-50 years are likely to raise temperatures high enough to melt Greenland entirely. Because the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere is several thousand years, that warming will be very hard to reverse. 

 

 

I'd be highly skeptical of that timeframe. For one, Greenland has lost about 0.1% of its mass in the past decade (if we believe the current estimates which may be on the robust side)...so you can do the math on that one. Of course, we assume warming accelerates the melt which is perfectly reasonable, but the GIS only melted down about 25% from current levels during the Eemian which had global temps about 3-5C warmer than today. That suggests there is some sort of stabilization point for the GIS that doesn't cause runaway melting at least within that range of temps.

 

Of course the flip side, is that same study showed that sea levels were much higher...which means Antarctica must have contributed.

[ben4vols]

And that's for the full 6 meters or so of melt - we are already seeing rising sea levels and their consequences.  It will only get worse from this point on.

 

 

What would be the best 2 examples you could point to? 

[LithiaWx]

Not a bad day for Greenland. Stacking on some mass in large areas.

Melt just above climo.

[PhillipS]

What would be the best 2 examples you could point to? 

 

That's a fair question.  In my opinion coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers are two issues that are exacerbated by sea level rise.  There is lots of info on these topics on the internet but I'll link to a few sources.

 

Coastal erosion is a problem around the world, not just in the US.  Here is a paper which discusses the link between global warming and accelerating coastal erosion [link], and here is a Mass. government site on the issue of salt mash loss [link].  Here is an excerpt from the paper's conclusion:

 

The agreement between the simple Bruun rule and observed erosion trends along

the U.S. East Coast suggests that sea level rise induces beach erosion, and further

that the rate of erosion is about two orders of magnitude greater than the rate of sea

level rise. Of course, this does not mean that sea level rise causes long-term erosion

directly; there is too little energy associated with it. In our view, rising sea levels

act as an enabler of erosion because higher water levels allow waves to act further

up the beach profile and move sediment seaward. The Bruun rule describes how

beach profiles respond to sea level rise if other conditions (e.g., sediment supply)

remain unchanged, and this process will occur as long as there is a rise in sea level.

 

The issue of salt water intrusion into aquifers directly affects the availability of fresh water for agriculture and human consumption.  Here is a link to a study of the problem in south Florida [link] but as with coastal erosion this is a world-wide problem.

 

These are interesting issues but are OT for this thread - so if you'd like to discuss them further just start a new thread.  I would but the forum admins are still barring me from starting new threads - I can only respond to existing topics.  Ain't censorship grand?

[LithiaWx]

Greenland continues to inch closer to climo melt levels.

[LithiaWx]

Greenland also stacked on quite a bit of mass in the NW portion of the ice sheet.

[LithiaWx]

New report from the NSIDC.... Melt is way behind 2012 now.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/2013/06/springtime-melt-in-greenland-late-start-rapid-spread/

[LithiaWx]

[Snow_Miser]

New report from the NSIDC.... Melt is way behind 2012 now.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/2013/06/springtime-melt-in-greenland-late-start-rapid-spread/

 

Isn't it amazing how neglected these threads are when the ice is not on the brink of a catastrophic melt?

 

That's great news that it's less than 2012. The melt shouldn't be too anomalous over the next week or so in Greenland.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Isn't it amazing how neglected these threads are when the ice is not on the brink of a catastrophic melt?

 

That's great news that it's less than 2012. The melt shouldn't be too anomalous over the next week or so in Greenland.

 

I am not ignoring it.

 

You guys clearly do not "understand" what is going on. 

 

2012 was highly anomalous because of how much of the ice sheet experienced a melt day at one time or at all.

 

But how much more did 2012 melt vs 2011 and 2010?  100GT? 

 

2013 will equal 2011 at the worst.

 

Since all of the focus is on "percentage" of the ice sheet receiving melt vs actual ice mass loss as a way to not have an intellectually honest discussion.  I stopped posting. 

 

When Mariattawx flat out bold face lied about the broken DMI model what's the point.

 

The broken model he keeps using to show where big snow's apparently keep falling show's 2013 and 2012 tied.  So I guess 2013 isn't way behind 2012.(like he said NSIDC apparently said, so which is it?)  At the same time the same poster uses a different graph to say 2013 is way behind 2012.  That's called being intellectually dishonest.

 

 

 

The broken model thinks 2012 and 2013 are even because as I have said over and over and over.  90%+ of the ice mass loss is from 15% or less of the GIS surface. 

 

NSIDC confirms by microwave scans that over 15% of the GIS surface has been in a state of melt for over three weeks.  They also didn't say 2013 was "way" behind 2012.

[The_Global_Warmer]

An honest observation would conclude.

 

1. 2013 is likely behind 2012 in overall ice mass loss.

2. 2013 is slightly behind in albedo drop from 1750M or lower.  And no where close to the albedo drop above 2000M.

3. 2013 has not contributed to melting off the snow layer to expose more of the dark ice below at this point.

 

 

I would say 2006 and 2009 are way behind 2012.

 

Do you guys think 2013 is going to be like 2006 or 2009?  Or like 2005 or 2011? 

[LithiaWx]

I am not ignoring it.

You guys clearly do not "understand" what is going on.

2012 was highly anomalous because of how much of the ice sheet experienced a melt day at one time or at all.

But how much more did 2012 melt vs 2011 and 2010? 100GT?

2013 will equal 2011 at the worst.

Since all of the focus is on "percentage" of the ice sheet receiving melt vs actual ice mass loss as a way to not have an intellectually honest discussion. I stopped posting.

When Mariattawx flat out bold face lied about the broken DMI model what's the point.

The broken model he keeps using to show where big snow's apparently keep falling show's 2013 and 2012 tied. So I guess 2013 isn't way behind 2012.(like he said NSIDC apparently said, so which is it?) At the same time the same poster uses a different graph to say 2013 is way behind 2012. That's called being intellectually dishonest.

The broken model thinks 2012 and 2013 are even because as I have said over and over and over. 90%+ of the ice mass loss is from 15% or less of the GIS surface.

NSIDC confirms by microwave scans that over 15% of the GIS surface has been in a state of melt for over three weeks. They also didn't say 2013 was "way" behind 2012.

Their verbiage was "well" behind 2012. NSIDC was also referencing ice melt not the mass budget. The DMI model isn't likely broken. It can and has been snowing in parts of Greenland this month. I have no idea why you keep saying it didn't happen.

You like to use the word liar. My opinion is the mass gains on the dMI chart are in large part due to snowfall. The southern tip that garnered so much objection to you in particular I believe was a storm and so does a degreed met who you also think is wrong. Maybe it's you who's wrong not the chart and the met and me.

[LithiaWx]

Isn't it amazing how neglected these threads are when the ice is not on the brink of a catastrophic melt?

 

That's great news that it's less than 2012. The melt shouldn't be too anomalous over the next week or so in Greenland.

Agreed. Unless Greenland is seeing a shocking melt Frivolous doesn't post in here.