We’ve been told that Greenland is thinning at the margins,and the glaciers are retreating, but while all this is happening the icecaps are now apparently thickening. This is according to a new article in Science as reported by ABC Online:
“Greenland’s icecap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a team of scientists says.
The 3,000-metre thick icecap is a key concern in debates about climate change because a total melt would raise world sea levels by about seven metres.
Satellite measurements showed that more snow was falling and thickening the icecap, especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.
Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire icecap was thinning.
“The overall ice thickness changes are … approximately plus 5 cms a year or 54 cms over 11 years,” according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and US institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup centre for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway.
However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.
Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture.
That extra moisture falls as snow below 0 degrees Celsius.”
And some Australian climatologists have said that as it gets warmer it might get wetter. Is it still raining in Perth?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yup, we just had a nice little drop around the middle of the day.
This reminds me of a nice little graph I have in a Water Corporation of WA report which shows the streamflow for a catchment at the SE corner of the metro area.
In 1914, 1940, 1959, 1979 and 2001 there are low points in streamflow, and between these years the stream flow rises. See figure 44 at http://www.watercorporation.com.au/Docs/Wungong/Wungong_project_document_section-7.pdf. Now we could blame the first two on the two world wars …
Streamflow is influenced by a number of factors, so I wouldn’t change global environmental management on the strength of this graph, but streamflow is also the summation of many environmental factors. Is there a cycle here and is our present anxiety about all dying of thirst over here in WA simply because we have recently hit the bottom of a cycle?
The reason the catchments in Western Australia are not yielding much water, even in wetter years such as this, is that they are choked with dense scrub, dead leaves, twigs, bark etc., due to a lack of regular burning. Before the 1970s they were burnt regularly by the then Forests Department. Look at the WA WaterCorp graph of streamflow, and compare it with rainfall. There can be no other explanation.
Regular burning ceased due to eco-mythology about frequent fire harming ‘biodiversity’, and litter rotting down if left alone, but the real world doesn’t work that way.
Burn the catchments with a mosaic of light, patchy fires, every 2-4 years, as Nyoongar people did before European settlement, and good flows will be restored, without soil erosion, and without lasting harm to native plants and animals. Keep up crackpot attempted fire exclusion and there will, eventually, be monster wildfires which will pollute the water with ash and silt, and kill many mature trees and native animals. It happened in Mundaring Catchment last summer, and a few years ago, I believe, in NSW catchments.
Our politicians seem to be blind to plain common sense, real science, and history, preferring to listen to the ravings of eco-mythologists who have never fought a bushfire, and a Von Munchausen version of fire history.
They are putting our water supplies at risk, in order to grovel for a few paltry urban green votes.
? Ender and Done are some what mute.
What, glaciers frozen their tongues?
Or are the ideas they argue with suddenly been shown to be incomplete?
Not frozen – just hanging out in disbelief after that Earth/Moom/Mars CO2 epsisode …. the spectators enjoyed that one
Anyway re the present …. What’s incomplete? It’s a pro-GW story.
“However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.
Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture.
That extra moisture falls as snow below 0 degrees Celsius.”
Says it all really
Ender and Phil
Ever experienced snow falling?
Oh Louis – come in spinner. Helps if you read the paper … “says it all really”
“Nonetheless, as mentioned, the NAO can explain about
three quarters of the surface elevation changes, leaving us to
speculate on other factors. A modeling study (30) of the
Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global
warming has shown that temperature increases up to 2.7°C
lead to positive mass balance changes at high elevations (due
to accumulation) and negative at low elevations (due to
runoff exceeding accumulation), consistent with our findings,
implying that perhaps a quarter of the growth may be caused
by global warming in Greenland (31) in our observation
period.”
Sigh ….
It’s going to be very exciting when we get the 4th assessment report … so many new facts and discoveries bolstering the case …
Sigh,
A modelling study
Phil, you cannot distinguish fact from prediction.
Phil,
a prediction of the 4th assessment report, not published, and you know its content,
You are, on this basis, not in possession of all the facts, especially the ones reported in the 4th assessment report which you cannot have yet.
Oh well in that case then we don’t know anything so you can stand down …
Actually it’s a satellite study … and they have to untangle interacting influences ove rthe course of the study – this is called analysis of the data Louis … Louis you really don’t have any idea … read the paper for heavens sake.
Oh no _ I don’t know exactly what will be in it but there have been amny exciting developments in the field and the author list is exciting to say the least. One might imagine that perhaps this time they won’t have to be so conservative.
Perhaps just some idle speculation…. we’ll see.
BTW how’s the temperature on the Moon versus Earth issue going with you ?
We are having some good rain too (NSW), place is very green with a heap of feed, must have been the dire predictions of weather guru, lifestyle advocate and film critic Martin Babakhan that triggered the downpour.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15686909-1702,00.html
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/media-releases/2004/babakhanpollution.htm
Unfortunately for Martin you could turn Australia off and it wouldn’t make any difference.
“exhaust from petrol and diesel engines rises upward, trapping the city’s hot core and worsening the heat stress below” – it does ??
I’m redecorating this morning Rog – going from rust to a bright vermillion colour
Really Phil? Mr Babakhan is a highly credentialled academic and speaks highly of IPCC Kyoto Armageddon etc.
Whilst you have been busily directing your energies into creating a cosy womb like sarcophagus Louis Hissink has created his own blog and no, you cant comment! (and as for poor Ender, he got a right monstering over at Tim Blair over his flacid contributions)
http://www.lhcrazyworld.blogspot.com/
So if the Greenland icecap thickens it’s evidence of AGW or if it thins it’s evidence of AGW??
Can we just summarise by saying that no matter what Greenland does it’s evidence supportive of AGW?
Should I look around for a hidden camera?
Rog – yea well…. he’ll have to march down the back at demonstrations…
I looked at Louis’s blog – well good on him. A market for everything.
Re greenland ice cap. Global warming doesn’t have to be simple. The margins and lower areas are losing mass rapidly and the glaciers have sped up dramatically. The salinity in the North Atlantic is freshening from all this activity. Doomsday speculation if the conveyor stops if salinity reduces enough. i.e. Great Britain freezes from global warming. The deepwater formation depends on salinity. The fact that the inland areas of Greenland may be slightly increasing in mass has been postulated by the theory. Global warming doesn’t all have to one after the other – in a complete straight line. Nature isn’t that simple. There are more forcings than just CO2 and there are some regional feedbacks. Meanwhile all around the Artic melts. The paper mentioned above goes into this in some detail.
Temperature of Moon and Earth?
A small matter of water and biology I suspect.
Phil,
I spent some time with Warwick Hughes today, comparing notes and whatever.
Warwick and I both agree that Global Warming in particular, and Environmentalism generally, is a religion.
Your comments confirm that.
Jim,
Phil adopts the “God” explanation – that AGW explains all observations but as we of a scientific persuasion have discovered from experience, these explanations, while apparently explaining all, actually explain none.
Phil,
unless I am blind as a bat, you qoute sources but provide no links, and then chide me for not reading them.
This suggests you are making all these quotes up.
Phil
Oh dear, you are quoting Jennifer.
Silly me, and on principle I don’t bother with the ABC sources, whatever their provenance.
I listen to Regional ABC during my field trips and generally it is ok, no politics except for the news items and one or two when I then turn it off and either listen to the Ipod or silence.
But quoting the ABC as a source to me is doomed to failure.
Lah de dah – what a rave … lah de dah was from Annie Hall of course.
Hey congrats on your blog – good luck. I liked the bit at the bottom about of the first post “Comments – I am not having any on this blog as I have had enough of the mean spirited discourse associated with the climate changers and their fellow travellers.”
Jeepers – after the caning you have handed out over the years to greenies and AGW types – wow !! Anyway – your blog – your house …
Thought the rest of of it was fairly predictable stuff – but did actally find some empathy in the computing section (strangely) – felt sort of echy actually). And an IPod too.
Louis you have sold out – you’ll have to march down the back on demos I’m afraid. Right wing extremists don’t have IPods – you have a reputation to live up to now that you have a blog to rear to adulthood.
Anyway lah-de-dah …
Jen didn’t explicitly list the reference, neither did ABC on-line. But in was in Science and did mention the Mohn-Sverdrup Center and so I tracked it down didn’t I. Always like to do deal with source when debating with sophists of course.
/ http://www.sciencexpress.org / 20 October 2005 / Page 1/ 10.1126/science.1115356
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
Ola M. Johannessen,1,2*
Kirill Khvorostovsky,3 Martin W. Miles,4,5 Leonid P. Bobylev3
1Mohn-Sverdrup Center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography / Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing
Center, Bergen, 5006, Norway. 2Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen, 5007, Norway. 3Nansen International
Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, St. Petersburg, 197101, Russia. 4Bjerknes Centre for Climate
And how is Warwick ? – any publications coming out?
Couldn’t help but wonder why the areas that show a warming in Australia didn’t seem to be near the big cities. And knowing what detailed fiddling the Bureau do to do their reference stations I’m sure he’s bringing a very detailed case to publication soon….
Meanwhile couldn’t help but notice the widespread nature of reduction in diurnal range outside of large cities. http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi
But alas maybe everywhere is a heat island ?
Warwick has got some convincing to do…. pity the satellite data for troposhere has overrun the whole business as well…. oh well lah de dah …
Oh and do tell – re Earth and Moon – how does that small matter of water and biology affect things perchance ?? Inform us lesser able out here in blog-land…
A number of people have commented on models and their usefulness or not – try this most interesting discussion led by a scientist from another field – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=193#more-193
and for a bit of baiting … how well does the Hockey Stick stand up against more recent reconstructions – quite well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png (thanks to Stoat)
Warwick and Louis – what a meeting of minds. They have decided that AGW is a religion – does the press know, has the PM been informed?
Phil,
you seem to be blissfully unaware that your ad hominems reflect on you, not worldly wise geoscientists such as Warwick and myself.
As for your references to Wikpedia and etc, they are now turning out to be ‘edited’.
I am not supplying evidence since I doubt that if the Graf Hindenburg crashed on you, a press statement denying it would be released.
As for your links to discussions to pits of vipers, hah hah.
A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false
No ad hominems ?
And what edits are you suggesting – anything wrong with the said references.
You’re not supplying any evidence as you don’t have any. The well is dry.
So I assume as a worldy wise geoscientist (interestingly self proclaimed) you have published your crackpot theories on the replacement for plate tectonics ?
Louis you throw bile everywhere on your web site – so don’t bother coming over all hurt and despondent.
Phil,
I am not hurt and despondent, but we note you are an expert in ad hominems. Not the alter ego of Sir Ad Hominous are you?
As a scientist I also tend to use scientific reasoning, using available evidence. In your case we get plenty of evidence but no reasoning at all.
As for the bile on my website Phil, name one individual whom I have Bilfied. (Bile – liver liquid, Bilefied? Verb?)
And,
Phil,
I have never criticised your references, just stated that some are ignored.
Louis – you don’t use any reasoning – just little quips – and then change topic !
If you were a scientist you would critique and expand on issues.
And “pits of vipers” – any basis for that comment ?
Phil,
amazing, self recogintion!
Anything else I could, or might, comment on………
pales………
And the artful dodger runs away – to make little quips another day ….
Despite all the palaver posted above, it still leaves the question.
How did Greenland get its name in the first place.? It of course implies that the place was very different when it was so tagged, and when the vikings colonised it. Natural variability is it not?.
Also, came across this paper with all its references. Seems all very sensible to me.Peer reviewed as well.
http://www.astro.uu.se/~1/noworry.htm
Entitled “Why we don’t have to worry about Co2.”
That should stir them up.
For some reason your link didn’t work … I Googled noworry.htm and found it…
http://www.astro.uu.se/~l/noworry.htm
(1) peer reviewed my foot
(2) who says we’re saturated ?? references ??
(3) nobody is denying past variability – past regional variability – but that’s not a useful argument – you need some drivers to explain then and now – just saying well we don’t know isn’t very scientific ?
1. His referenced papers would have been peer reviewed. Go on, now tell me his own paper has no intellectual merit whatsoever because it hasnt of itself been peer reviewed, even though the conclusions/evidentiary matters are based upon peer reviewed documents.
2. See references provided previously.
3. Well if one can’t determine how natural variabilty takes place then it is all rather dubious. Saying so isnt a criticism of science or anybody… it is called being truth full
You said it was peer reviewed – just pointing out that it is not. Of course that doesn’t mean it may not have any merit. Just that it isn’t. Lots of people write papers with references but that doesn’t make their paper itself peer reviewed. We should discuss it on its merits.
And to be fair dink – I could have obfuscated and said your link is a dud – you simply made a small typo – but I have provided the right link for more discussion.
So work me through the saturation references and argument and whatever else you think has merit.
Malcolm
– pretty easy to dispatch
Basically 3 old hoary chestnuts
(1) Temp rise after the CO2 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
(2) CO2 saturation
-http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
-http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
-http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 see comment 54 !
(3) Plants – well different plants will respond depending on whether C3 or C4 metabolism. Rangelands may be covered in C3 woody weeds. And you need the rainfall to go with it or CO2 won’t help. But regardless the CO2 is going up up up – plants aren’t flattening the curve are they? Anyway big topic if you want to Google C3, C4 plants, climate change …
Phil
Do you read the references before toss them out as a point of argument.?
I dont think any of the papers you referenced are anywhere near as definitive and certain as you infer.
Rather than being hoary old chestnuts as you call them, they look like matters of continuing debate with good arguments either way.
Malcolm – I’m sorry but he is he is advancing arguments that have been long dispatched.
He provides no references for his CO2 saturation assertion.
The temperature after the CO2 argument has another side which to be fair he would have to acknowledge and discount/defeat/argue on. It’s not reasonable to think that the CO2 would start the warming from equilibrium but moreover an orbital variation would start it and then a reinforced CO2 feedback effect would set in.
In terms of my references being definitive or not – you’ll notice in realclimate considerable arguments against the authors at times. Some vigorous. Some defended. It’s far from being all one way and clear cut.
If there are clear errors of other evidence – advance it… I have to say I found one of my CO2 satuation references most interesting as it advanced my understanding no end. I learned something new about the intimate details of the physics.
The CO2 photosynthesis stuff is interesting and references are fine but where does it lead – will plants relieve us from rapidly rising CO2 – “no”. and if you research closer to home – Australia FACE (free air carbon dioxide) experiments things are not as simple as they seem ecologically.
http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/ras/ozface/
You can also Google … FACE experiments CO2….. if you want international study reports in free air.
I’m happy to debate any aspect with you. My reponse is primarily to the assertions of his paper not his references some of which support his argument, others are just “interesting” i.e. “did you know”s…
Just because he may quote some references that stack up – it doesn’t mean his own argument necessarily does. That’s not a logical a priori position.