I reckon it is nearly impossible to keep up with the climate change literature particularly the latest climate change scare story. Working out whether a particular piece of information is invented, real, real but exaggerated, etcetera, certainly takes effort.
Brisbane’s newspaper, The Courier-Mail, has a story on page 19 of this weekend’s edition titled ‘Greenland ice sheets double melt rate’.
It begins:
“Global warming is melting Greenland’s glaciers much faster than previously believed, raising fears that sea levels will rise rapidly during the next century”
This is how it works according to a latest issue of Science magazine:
“The Greenland Ice Sheet gains mass through snowfall and loses it by surface melting and runoff to the sea, together with the production of icebergs and melting at the base of its floating ice tongues. The difference between these gains and losses is the mass balance; a negative balance contributes to global sea-level rise and vice versa. About half of the discharge from the ice sheet is through 12 fast-flowing outlet glaciers, most no more than 10 to 20 km across at their seaward margin, and each fed from a large interior basin of about 50,000 to 100,000 km2. As a result, the mass balance of the ice sheet depends quite sensitively on the behavior of these outlet glaciers.
Two changes to these glaciers have been observed recently. First, the floating tongues or ice shelves of several outlet glaciers, each several hundred meters thick and extending up to tens of kilometers beyond the grounded glaciers, have broken up in the past few years. Second, measurements of ice velocity made with satellite radar interferometric methods have demonstrated that flow rates of these glaciers have approximately doubled over the past 5 years or so.”
This article in Science (Vol. 31, pg 963-964) goes on to explain that 2002 and 2005 are records for “melt extent over the 27 years of observation” – which I assume refers to the last 27 years.
Contrast this information with an article titled “Recent cooling in coastal southern greenland and relation with the north atlantic oscillation” published in 2003 by Edward Hanna and John Cappelen (Geophysical research letters, VoL. 30, NO. 3, 1132).
This research paper which covers the period up until 2002 (the year there was record melting according to the new article in Science magazine)states:
“Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland, 1958-2001, shows a significant cooling (trend-line change -1.29C for the 44 years), as do sea-surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador Sea, in contrast to global warming (+0.53C over the same period). The land and sea temperature series follow similar patterns and are strongly correlated but with no obvious lead/lag either way. This cooling is significantly inversely correlated with an increased phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) over the past few decades (r = -0.76), and will probably have significantly affected the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
This 2003 paper only refers to coastal southern Greenland, while the new Science paper refers to “several large glaciers” and the last 5 years or so.
…………
Thanks to Phil Done for alerting me to the new paper in Science and Benny Peiser for the link to 2003 paper.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
PhilDone and other worry warts may wish to Google or Wiki “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” before running with the latest Greenland-is-melting-we-will-all-be-rooned theme
Jen, On the subject of exaggerated reports relating to global warming, I have made a complaint to the ABC about the program
Dearest Roget
You have forgotten though that you have cherrypicked – we have worldwide glacial retreat, global surface warming, MSU satellite warming, oceanic warming, numbers of fast cyclones doubled all basins, Australian rainfall patterns changed, species ranges and lifecycles changing worldwide – even in the Southern Ocean, we have Philipona’s series of papers directly measuring the flux – do we have a solar driver – no – orbital driver – no – volcanic driver – no – explain it all away. You can’t. And the rate of warming is unprecedented.
Fascinating too that people will readily grab multi-decadal oscillations as proven fact over global warming. On what basis do you judge that science to be definitive.
Same as how most contrarians will totally agree that all the paleo data is fine – no questions asked.
And we have a fetish for talking about average degrees global warming – what a small one dimensional contrarian view of the issue, and unable to see the full global picture.
Incidentally the papers on Greenland are worth a read. It was only a little while ago that Greenland was quoted on this blog as the example where nothing was happening.
Now it’s the “whoa we can explain this away” example. Interesting that the modelling checks out too
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234
I hope you find this information helpful and that the horses are well.
Regards
Phillipe
Ian Castles – Perhaps she looked on Wikipedia
“Based on basic science, observational sensitivity studies, and the climate models referenced by the IPCC, temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100 [2]. This is expected to result in other climate changes including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Such changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes, change agricultural yields, cause glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, or contribute to biological extinctions. Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is very difficult to connect any particular event to global warming.”
or just the basic climate sensitivity:
“The current crop of models studied by the IPCC range from an equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.5°C at the low end to about 5°C at the high end.”
http://realclimate.org/index.php?s=climate+sensitivity&submit=Search
Ender, You obviously didn’t read my last posting on the thread ‘The Greenhouse Mafia Part 2: Ian Castles view’, in which I quoted from my letter published in The Canberra Times last Monday. In that letter I pointed out that:
‘The 5.8 degrees number came out of modelling simulations in which researchers developed ‘storylines’ (their word) of imaginary futures in which, for example, the entire global population became far richer than the richest countries in the world today. In one of these imagined futures, the modellers speculated that by the end of the century the average consumption of electricity per head for the whole world could grow to over four times that of the rich countries at present, and that fossil fuels would remain the main source of energy. They emphasised that the outputs of such ‘what if?’ exercises were in no sense predictions or forecasts.’
Unless you think that the entire world is going to be far richer than the richest countries of the world in 2100, and will use far more energy per head than the richest countries of the world do at present, and generate nearly as high a proportion of that energy from the use of fossil fuels as the world does at present, I don’t see the relevance of the 5.8 deg. C figure that you’ve quoted, even for 2100.
But according to the transcript Janine Cohen referred specifically to a temperature rise of between about 0.5 degC and 2 degC relative to today by 2050.’ By 2050, Ender. That’s what I heard on the program, and that’s what appears in the transcript. Are you saying that I misheard and that the transcript is wrong – that she actually said 2100?
The IPCC PROJECTIONS of temperature increase (based on the storylines dreamed up by the SRES modellers) are shown decade by decade in ‘Appendix II – SRES Tables’ of IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’ The projected increase between 2000 and 2050 for the highest of the IPCC’s six illustrative emissions scenarios – A1FI (FI = fossil fuel intensive) is shown in the report as 1.7 degrees.
If the IPCC as the source of all wisdom and the product of thousands of scientists says that, on extreme assumptions about future energy consumption and the use of fossil fuels, the temperature would rise by 1.7 degrees by 2050, why are Four Corners viewers told that carbon dioxide emissions are expected to result in a warming of up to 4 degrees by 2050. I’m interested in the ABC’s answer to that question Ender, not yours.
The figures that you quote for equilibrium sensitivity are in accordance with my understanding of the range in the current crop of models studied by the IPCC. So what?
Jen,
The reallly disturbing thing about these cartoons is that:
a) they were originally printed in an Egyptian newspaper back in October,
b) muslim and western art is full of depictions of the prophet going back hundreds of years.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Hypocrisy seems to have no bounds with these people.
Whoops. Sorry about that, wrong item.
But indirectly there is a point, this is a much bigger issue for the world to handle than AGW. It is already costing us heaps.
Climatic Change due to Consumption!!!!
Dear Jen & all,
It is highly obvious that the Earth is getting warmer and our consumption rates are also increasing. There is a strong correlation on this!!! The politics of this world is based on greed. Do we change our lifestyle to fit other people agendas? Yes we should do, but unfortunately people generally do not do this. So we have to take charge of this and lead the way!!! Do not rely on others to do it or we will fall into cul de sac scenario. I would like re-ediucate all these capitalist who are basically getting brainwashed with their Business & Economics theories. Because of the first rule or principle of Economics is that “Our wants is unlimited” which means to me “It is good to be greedy”. We need to change the definition because the whole capitalistic thinking is based upon Consumption. The more we consume, the more we use items or the more we use fuels, for instance more fossil fuels being consume (burn up doing combustion and etc) therefore produces a greenhouse gas more like Carbon Dioxide or any other hydrocarbon gases that is release into the atmosphere and etc. We need to change the definition to “our want are unlimited within reason” taking note of scarce resources and other factors, such as Human survival.
We also mention it causes the increase in temperature which leads to Global Warming and eventually leads to the polar caps are melting away which also leads to rising seas levels and eventually floodings of areas or evn countries. Such as Bangladesh, Maldives, Netherlands, Tuvalu. Other disaters are also link such as the El Nina effect due to warmer temperature effects of the Pacific Ocean which leads to heavy rains and eventually leads to heavy raining and finally to mudslides in Phillipines. Hurricane Katrina and other storms will be more frequent due to the warmer temperature of the water in various oceans due to climatic change. So looking at the snow that is melting away from Greenland is strong indicator that the Earth is basically reshaping itselves for future that includes coastlines, weather paterns and types of agriculture plantation will change too.
Call me stupid.
I thought people once lived on Greensland, didn’t they? There were supposed to be colonies of Vikings who had set up on the “big green” growing veggies and other stuff when the place was warmer.
I am no scientist but I flew over the the place about 5 years ago on a London/ NY flight- saw it during peak daylight and it didn’t look too green to me: more white than anything else, which is all beside the point.
My point is the there didn’t seem to be too much to worry about in terms of sea levels rising when the Vikings lived there so what’s the worry now?
There is potential for the place to become a decent tax haven if we can get some of the bloody ice out and there are good prospects for tourism, so the quicker the ice melts the better in my book.
First thing to point out is that the predicted ocean level increases from supposed global warming are not soley due to melting ice caps or glaciers in Greenland. It is predominantly from large oceanic water bodies increasing only slightly in temperature and expanding in relatively small volumes. It is the fact that there are large quantities of this ‘warmed’ water, that will contribute to ocean level rise.
Another point to remember is that weather extents are becoming more varied and greater in intensity. What will impact mostly on ocean level increases is peak storms (ie intense low pressure systems) which with higher intensity will permit the ocean level to rise far greater than the mean level of times recently experienced. This coupled with small increases in mean ocean level will result in vast low lying coastal areas, estuarine systems, and even low lying floodplains to become inundated with sea water on a greater frequency. CSIRO has data and predictions to support this, something in the range of 0.2 to 0.8 m in the next 50 years.
On another note it is important for people to understand the complexities of ocean currents and weather patterns. “Global warming” does not suggest that everywhere on earth is to become “warmer”, but infact it suggests that global equilibriums are shifting. Osscilation Indexes reflect this change, and any change in the location of warm or cold ocean currents will dramatically effect the weather patterns experienced on terestrial locations. A change in weather means a change in biodiversity, it took us and all other species millions of years to evolve, it took thousands of years for human kind to adapt to current environment. How are we going to adapt to something that is occurring within the last 200 years. Methinks there is a lot of hardship in the future.
This is the “Golden Age” of humanity for the fires of ‘progress’ are about to be shifted drastically and who knows what the outcome will be, but it wont be a 3 course meal deliverred on a plate at our feet!
Therefore the term “global warming’ is untrue.
Mostly everywhere global warming. MEGW
or GW for short. or Anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases causing planetary climate changes AIGGCPCC or GW for short.
William Connolly does a back of the envelope and suggests that 13% to 20% of the current sea level rise is due to Greenland.
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/ 18/2/2006
Joe the trader – see previous recent climate thread on Medieval warming and Greenland
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001176.html#comments
Ender
How do you say this:
* “Global warming” does not suggest that everywhere on earth is to become “warmer”, but infact it suggests that global equilibriums are shifting.*
and with a straight face, say this
*It is predominantly from large oceanic water bodies increasing only slightly in temperature and expanding in relatively small volumes.*
This has to be the biggest load of nonsense I have seen on this board.
Ender, there have been lots of periods when the earth was warmer wothout noticable rises in sea levels.
One other thing.
You have maintained that we are running out of carbon based fuels. If that is the case, then why are you worried about global warming? You don’t make any sense at all quite frankly.
Almost everything thing you say has a dead end.
I suggest you go outside and enjoy the sunshine and hope it gunna get warmer.
Ender
Every time you come out with this stuff you are further entricing me to go out and buy myself a 6.5 litre Hummer!
One day when the world stays warm and avoids another glaciation you’ll thnk me and possible name a hospital wing in my honor.
Joe the trend analyst – why do numbers go up and down.
What Ender says is correct on ocean thermal expansion. And correct on the global equilbriums comment too.
And Ender is suggesting oil may become limited causing shifts in the cost of global mobility. But plenty of coal left to liquefy – at a price.
Give us your assessment of global oil reserves.
So when’s the next glaciation due then Rog?
Phil
My estimate for global Oil reserves?
We well never, never, ever run out of oil.
When the cost of extraction become too expensive we will switch to subsitutes.
It is because oil is cheap and plentiful that we keep using using it. Mid east oil cost about $4-5 pb to extract. Fact!
If that cost heads to $30 we will be cutting oil out of shale where there about is 200 years supply on current usage estimates.
The reason we haven’t gone to shale is that the cost of $30 pb puts it within the Mid east gun sights.
Thankfully we will still be using oil and heating up the world for a long time yet.
Best thing to avoid glaciation.
Soon as I read yesterday’s CM I thought about the reactions here.
Good to see everyone manning their positions!
Done, P and Farmer J raise a number of important matters, but I’d be interested in their views on the point raised in Jennifer’s initial posting, which I’d thought was the apparent contradiction between two papers. Both relate specifically to Greenland, and both have appeared since the last IPCC assessment.
If it’s cherrypicking to focus on Greenland, then it was the IPCC that started the cherrypicking because they provided estimates of sea level change arising from specifically from Greenland. They explained that net ablation had to be calculated from models, which ‘had considerable sensitivity to the surface elevation data set and the parameters of the refreezing methods used’ (para. 11.2.3.1). From models, they summed the best estimates of the various mass balance components for Greenland, and said that this gave ‘a balance of +0.12 ± 0.15 mm/yr of global sea level change, not significantly different from zero.’ The SRES Tables that I’ve quoted reflect this: they show zero net change for the Greenland component between 1990 and 2000, and a rise of 1 millimetre, under all scenarios, between 2000 and 2010. I’ll show my age by confessing that I need to think of that as equivalent to a rate of rise which would raise sea levels from this source by 4 inches in a century.
I interpret the just-published Science paper as saying that, in the light of trends since 2000 and a reassessment of earlier information, the present and prospective rate of sea level rise attributable to Greenland is considered by the authors to be substantially higher than the IPCC thought when the text of the TAR was finalised in 2000.
I’m not qualified to judge the significance of this new information, but since it’s been published in Nature it obviously must be given due weight (not as much weight as when Sir John Maddox was the editor of the journal, but significant weight nonetheless).
But it’s also relevant that another paper published since the TAR in a more reliable source (Geophysical Research Letters) found a significant FALL of 1.3 deg. C in temperatures in coastal southern Greenland between 1958 and 2001 over both land and sea. Contrary to Phil D’s implication, I don’t ‘grab multi-decadal oscillations as proven fact’, any more than I accept that the reassessment of the recent and prospective rise in sea levels due to ‘Greenland’ is proven fact. On the face of it, there is an apparent conflict between these two proven facts, and I’d very much like an explanation of the difference before forming a view of which of these facts represents the truth of the matter.
I don’t have a fetish for talking about so many degrees global warming – here the issue arises because of apparent regional cooling. I don’t ‘agree that all the paleo data is fine – no questions asked’: McIntyre & McKitrick, Buerger & Cubasch, Moberg, von Storch and others have asked a lot of questions about the paleo data and they haven’t been answered yet. Of course Greenland was until recently ‘quoted on this blog as the example where nothing was happening’ – at least as far as the present and prospective effect of Greenland on sea level rise is concerned, that was until recently the IPCC consensus view. The article just published in Nature appears to take a different view – I don’t know whether that means the authors are considered to be contrarians by the IPCC milieu. I don’t understand all of this effort to portray one view as mainstream and everyone else’s view as contrarian. What’s wrong with just focusing on the evidence?
Hi Phil, I note you’ve misspelled William’s surname yet again, but he doesn’t seem to mind when you do it. I take his back-of-the envelope calculation to mean that he believes the rise in sea level due to Greenland is now 4 mm. per decade, or four times the figure of 1 mm between 2000 and 2010 projected by the IPCC in the SRES Tables. I realise that there is inevitably a large element of uncertainty in the estimates, but I’d like to think that it’s possible to say after the event why the best estimate of the realised outcome differs from the modelled projections. So far I’m not seeing that.
Sorry, I got that translation of the IPCC’s estimate of the Greenland-induced temperature rise between 2000 and 2010 wrong. A rise of 1 millimetre in 10 years is a rise of 10 millimetres, or 1 centimetre, in a century. That’s an increase of 0.4 inches in a century, not 4 inches.
Has anyone commenting here actually dropped an iceblock in a glass of water at room temp lately and measured the simple relationships like levels and temperature before, during and afterwards? I reckon the water gets colder before it goes up!
I can’t believe what I am reading on Jennifer’s blog!
So I have mispelled it. And was trying to get it right too. Drat! He was actually referring to yourself last time though I think. I apologise to William anyway.
Ian – I should have qualified – I was inferring glaciation time levels in paleo data not the last 1000-2000 years – but alas I was not clear.
Wasn’t making a big thing over sea level rise. Just interesting how big the volumes are. Was not suggesting any disaster scenario.
Taz – interesting experiment – but a glass is a small volume relatively and warmed by the surrounding air – anyway do you wish to expand ?
With regard to temperature increases in the upper part of the range it would be wise to consider that many of the models do not have a fully coupled biosphere. There are a few risks out there!.
eg.
(1) the northern American Sink (it is large enough to offset fossil fuel emissions from the USA, and the USA tried it on, as a way to get around Kyoto). This sink will eventually fill up and rates of atmospheric CO2 will increase more rapidly.
(2) Vunerabilities of tropical forests to a combination of fire and drought
(3) Methane and CO2 emissions from permafrost melt
(4) Lack of plant response to CO2 in many CO2 experiments
It seems that the skeptics are not too interested in these sinks/sources as risk factors in future climates.
Phil; volumes hardly matter if the ratios are right for the particular model. Tried it yet? Be the first!
Richard – yep a large unknown – some have said another 300ppm in it ! Also northern forests near their sink capacity. OK Taz – making an ice cube first! Got the fridge doing some regional cooling.
The title of this thread is “Greenland warming faster than, when it was cooling?” Does anyone intend to address the issue raised in the initial posting?
Richard Darksun, I don’t know whether you’re counting me among the skeptics whom you allege to be ‘not interested in these sinks/sources as risk factors in future climates’, but if you are I’d be interested to know what evidence you have for this conclusion.
OK Ian – we give up – you tell us.
Phil,
I thought Ian Castles did a reasonable summary of the issue I raised when he wrote:
“I interpret the just-published Science paper as saying that, in the light of trends since 2000 and a reassessment of earlier information, the present and prospective rate of sea level rise attributable to Greenland is considered by the authors to be substantially higher than the IPCC thought when the text of the TAR was finalised in 2000.
… But it’s also relevant that another paper published since the TAR in a more reliable source (Geophysical Research Letters) found a significant FALL of 1.3 deg. C in temperatures in coastal southern Greenland between 1958 and 2001 over both land and sea.
…On the face of it, there is an apparent conflict between these two proven facts, and I’d very much like an explanation of the difference before forming a view of which of these facts represents the truth of the matter.”
Why didn’t the recent Science paper consider the earlier finding? Is it relevant?
My questions are genuine.
The short answer is that I am interested in these large potential unknowns, insofar as I can understand enough to learn about them. For example, I heard a vigorous debate on the potential for large methane and CO2 emissions from permafrost melt at the Australian Academy of Science workshop on “Pan evaporation: An example of the detection and attribution of trends in climate variables’ in Canberra in November 2004. Unfortunately this debate was not reproduced in the Proceedings subsequently published by the AAS,
Yes OK but Ian is pressing – in the past you have told me that people can contribute as they like and the thread can meander. I don’t have to do all heavy lifting and others are welcome to have a go. But seeing you’re being most persuasive I’ll make some comments (IMHO of course). And yes I believe you are genuine – I always assume that.
So what do we know. The periods of time for the various studies are different. The Arctic is generally melting. Greenland seems to be melting at the edges but we are seeing some colder temperatures and consolidation of the inland icepack.
Similar things are happening in Antarctica. I believe that and increased local hydrological cycle can cause this and that this is not necessarily inconsistent with greenhouse theory. Digressing a tad an enhanced circumpolar vortex around Antarctica may have walled off the southern polar region somewhat.
Back in the Arctic we do have “oscillations” such as the AO and NAO at work. Just as we may have long term oscillations such as the PDO (~IPO) in the Pacific Ocean. However given the low numbers for these records some have argued about their validity statistically speaking. So where are these oscillations at in the last few years and now ? What are the recent sea surface temperature anomalies now (SSTs). Google pls guys.
Of course my view is that we may have both operating? Why not?
The IPCC text is now somewhat dated so it’s OK to have some new science. That’s the way life is. Be very boring otherwise. Of course these will eventually see the full rigour of an IPCC panel investigation in the relevant working group.
This post at RC may also be partially relevant.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234#more-234
Also despite Rog’s predictable opening in this thread – I haven’t claimed the end of the world.
Thanks Phil. The points that you make on Greenland and the Arctic are fair enough, but I’m troubled by the fact that these are coming from you and not from the authors of the ‘Science’ paper. Shouldn’t the paper in ‘Science’ have explained the apparent inconsistency with the 2003 GRL paper?
‘Science’ seems more interested in publishing findings that will make headlines in the popular press than in giving its readers a balanced assessment. I don’t think that they’d want to give any exposure to a recent paper that showed that there’d been a decline in temperature in southern coastal Greenland over a 40-year period. That is not necessarily inconsistent with greenhouse theory, but the fact that some people might think it was would be enough to ensure that it won’t be mentioned in ‘Science.’
It’s OK to have some new science and that’s the way life is? If only.
As for the notion that the findings ‘will eventually see the full rigour of an IPCC panel investigation in the relevant working group’, here’s Steve McIntyre’s account of his experience as a reviewer for Working Group I of the forthcoming assessment:
‘IPCC refused to give me access as a reviewer to data for an unpublished study and threatened to expel me as a reviewer if I asked authors for data. They stated that the job of an IPCC reviewer was merely to see if the IPCC report accurately reflected the journal publication – not to carry out additional review of the article (even if still unpublished).’
Oh Ian for heaven’s sake. They’re reporting their work on rapid change in glacial movement, not a thorough dissertation on the entire climatology of Greenland. Get off the mantra and enjoy some discussion. Can we not discuss developments without getting into an IPCC bash/hockey stick/they did the economics wrong type discussion. Try RC for some dietary diversity 🙂
Anyway given this is a blog (- not Letters to Nature nor Science nor GFL) – where we are having informal discussion – what’s your take on the differences in papers or Greenland climate vis a vis the Arctic in general ?
I had a go at discussion above (upon request) and also asked for some help on recent data.
Of course if you are feeling worked up about things you can pen off a letter to Science !
Of course ‘everybody knows why they put ice in their drink’ Ian.
Phil, The first sentence of the report in the ‘Courier Mail’ said ‘Global warming is melting Greenland’s glaciers much faster than previously believed.’ The thing that I’d like to have a discussion about is whether or not that report was correct.
Jen’s initial posting drew attention to the findings of another recent paper which, if valid, seems to me to raise a doubt about whether the Courier-Mail’s scare story is correct. Sorry, but it doesn’t help me to be told that the authors were reporting their work on ‘rapid change in glacial movement’: my interest is in whether it is a valid conclusion from their work that ‘global warming is melting Greenland’s glaciers much faster than previously believed’. I’m not qualified to have a ‘take on the differences in papers’, and if it’s possible for the matter to be explained in a way that a lay person can understand, I’d be interested in seeing such an explanation. I’m not expecting you to do ‘the heavy lifting’: I think that the article in ‘Science’ should have done that.
You’re the one who couldn’t discuss developments without getting on the mantra with the claim that ‘these will eventually see the full rigour of an IPCC panel investigation.’ If IPCC reviewers can do no more than check that other publications have been correctly reported, I don’t see that IPCC’s investigations are particularly rigorous.
As for a letter to ‘Science’, Steve McIntyre has just written one asking why the journal doesn’t follow its own stated policies. I don’t thing any letter from me would get far.
Thanks, Ian Castles. At last, we finally have a means to determine when this fearful Greenland Ice Sheet will take it’s ball and go home. At a 1mm rise in sea level PER DECADE the much vaunted 7 metre rise in sea level from Greenland will take 7,000 years. So by the year 2050 the ice sheet will still be 99.36% intact.
And it will remain intact for the primary reason that, like Antarctica, it is a land mass in such a latitude that rays of the sun hit at such a low angle that almost zero heat is retained.
And even if we covered the entire sheet with black plastic, this heat retention rate will remain the same.
Disappearing glaciers can provide some frighteningly big numbers, but only if you ignore the even bigger numbers that make up the full context.
And one just can’t help thinking that the great, great, grand children might be able to spare a few GigaBillion dollars from their re-greening of Mars project to save the remaining 99% of this little ice sheet.
Dear Jen and all,
Global Warming definition was declare officially in the Kyoto Protocol. Please check it as well as other treaties between governments. If you do not believe me, please check the treaties and etc. Especially United Nations Treaty on Climatic Change – Convention on Climatic Change!!!!!
There will be nice articles on Global Warming on two UK National Newspapers. These are “The Guardian” & “The Times”. Both on the front page and etc. It is highly interesting that both newspapers on the same day are focusing on this. It is usually the “The Independent” that takes the lead on this. Greenland and Antartic are big indicators what is happening worldwide. To answer the warmer seas plays a major part on our Biosphere, for example recently the Great Barrier reef is under severe threat due to acidification of the seas as well as warmer climate leads to increase temperature of seas and oceans. The coral in the Great Barrier Reef slowly erodes as well as massive decomposition is happening at an alarming rate. Furthermore to this once the Barrier has gone. Places or cities like Perth in Australia will increase rate of flooding just like New Orleans in the USA and etc. Also an increase chances of Tsunami due to small Tectonic shocks will also play a part. another alarming factor is Oxygen Depletation due to increase rate of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which scientists have not monitored it seriously at all. So we must take this very seriously and find out what is happening!!!!!
I’m not saying that the melting is apocalyptic.
I think it is very interesting if these glaciers have suddenly sped up. Worth reporting. I really don’t know why you’re all on the conspiracy band-wagon. Do you doubt their science?
Of course the media will spin it as we’re all be rooned – next day we’ll then be confronted with Andrew Bolt who’ll tell us it’s all nonsense anyway. Pity the punters at home.
I think it’s very interesting and the GRL paper is also most interesting as well.
Don’t be put off by being unqualified Ian – we’re all mug punters – that’s just too slick to try and make it an issue then don’t comment. We all notice!
Why is this thread pushing the conspiracy line ? I reckon it’s an IPA plot myself 🙂
Taz – ice cube prepared for this evening’s experiment. Will be using a standard glass and digital thermometer.
Phil, I do try to understand. I read the post at RC that you told me might be partially relevant. I know enough to be able to see that it’s a good paper (unlike many of those posted at RC), but I don’t know enough to be able to say whether it’s relevant or not.
You ask whether I doubt the ‘science’ of the authors of the paper in ‘Science’. If your question is whether I doubt that the authors of the paper followed the scientific method, my answer is no. If your question is whether I doubt that ‘measurements of ice velocity made with satellite radar interferometric methods have demonstrated that flow rates of these glaciers have approximately doubled over the past 5 years or so’, my answer is again no. But if you asked me analogous questions about the GRL paper, I’d answer no to these questions too.
That leads back to the point that the sudden acceleration of the glaciers comes immediately after a long period during which, according to the earlier paper, regional temperatures in southern coastal Greenland have been DECREASING twice as fast as the global temperature is increasing. That seems to me to require an explanation.
I’m not being ‘slick’ by ‘trying to make this an issue’. It’s precisely the issue that was raised for discussion at this thread.
If you are ‘Done, P’, your first comment on the thread said that it was ‘Fascinating that people will readily grab multi-decadal oscillations as proven fact over global warming’, and asked rhetorically ‘On what basis do you judge that science to be definitive.’
Speaking for myself, I hadn’t said anything about multi-decadal oscillations. In my simple-minded way, I took the key finding of the GRL paper to be that thered been a significant decline in regional temperature over a 44-year period. I have no idea whether the authors thought that this was an oscillation and I don’t see why the apparent contradiction between the papers would be removed if it was.
The late Professor Rhys Jones told the National Academies Forum on ‘Australians and our changing climate’ in 1996 that oats were grown in southern Greenland in the early Middle Ages. I think that that is at least as interesting as either of the papers we’ve been discussing, and raises the question of why the glaciers have suddenly sped up now when southern Greenland is so much colder.
Incidentally, Rhys Jones called his paper ‘The Skeptical Archeologist’ – perhaps that provides a clue as to why it doesn’t seem to have been cited in the climate change literature.
Now, please don’t accuse me of having said that there has been a conspiracy to ignore Rhys Jones’s paper.
We have some more information. There is accumulation in the centre, but there is both increased melt and increased dynamic flow around the edge. The Rignot paper is a demonstration of the importance of the dynamic part, which is not that well understood. It might have something to do the increased surface melt area (which has been increasing since 93 (2005 was the record year) (http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005/ ) which is adding to the basal lubrication.
At the other end of the world in Antarctica where decreasing temperatures have been reported these papers are most interesting.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/ShindellSchmidt1.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18
It’s all about SAM you see.
Ice data from Greenland;
ftp://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Is it getting warmer?
More Greenland stuff from “The GISP2 ice core record-paleoclimate highlights”
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/mayews01.html
“The Anthropogenic Era
Anthropogenic influences on climate and atmospheric chemistry have been preliminarily investigated in the GISP2 record. Previously identified increases in sulfate and nitrate seen in south Greenland ice cores and attributed to anthropogenic activity [ Neftel et al., 1985; Mayewski et al., 1986] have been identified in the GISP2 core and contrasted to the pre-anthropogenic atmosphere [ Mayewski et al., 1990]. Although year-to-year variability may be largely dominated by variability in atmospheric circulation, Mayewski et al. [1990] demonstrated that background concentrations in the remote atmosphere maintain a signature that responds to, at the very least, patterns in the strength of pollutant sources on scales on the order of decades or less. While pre-anthropogenic concentrations of nitrate exceeded those of sulfate, by the turn of the nineteenth century sulfate levels caught up to nitrate levels in response to dramatic increases in the emissions of pollutant SO. By the mid-1970s, however, nitrate concentrations again exceeded sulfate concentrations, reflecting the more rapid rise of NO pollutant emissions. An observed increase in excess chloride at GISP2 [ Mayewski et al., 1993a] as of the 1940s, is believed to be a byproduct of the increased levels of anthropogenically-derived HNO and HSO, since the latter are believed to aid in the volatilization of HCl from seasalt aerosol [ Eriksson, 1959]. Additional confirmation of the role that anthropogenic pollutants may have on perturbing the chemistry of the atmosphere comes from the coincidence of increased sulfate levels and depression of North Atlantic temperatures between 1940-1970 [ Wigley, 1990; Charlson et al., 1992] which has been demonstrated by a comparison of GISP2, south Greenland and Yukon Territory ice cores with temperature change records [ Mayewski et al., 1993b].
Examination of a 217-meter temperature profile developed from a site near the GISP2 borehole reveals a recent warming in near-surface firn which is within the range of natural variability, providing no definitive evidence of anthropogenically-induced greenhouse gas warming [ Alley and Koci, 1990].
Phil, I can’t agree with you that ‘It’s all about SAM you see’ because ‘S’ stands for southern, as in southern hemisphere. The subject of the discussion on this thread is Greenland, which is in the northern hemisphere. So the links that you posted to papers on Antarctica, though interesting, do not seem to me to be relevant.
Your immediately preceding post was both interesting and relevant to our subject, and I’ll paste in here a paragraph from the paper to which you provided a link:
‘There was extensive melt for 7 days during 2005 that covered ALL of southern Greenland including South Dome at an elevation of 2900 m for 3 days. This event resulted in the largest melt area recorded on the ice sheet surpassing the previous record in 2002. The 3-D view of Greenland melt extent shows the total melt area for 2005 and highlights the regions that never melted in the previous 26-year long PM record.’
I’m not suggesting that the authors of the ‘Science’ paper should have presented ‘a thorough dissertation on the entire climatology of Greenland’. But perhaps they should have discussed the apparent conflict with the earlier paper: the record melt area in extent in southern Greenland in 2002 came at the end of a 44-year period during which there was a cooling in the climate of southern coastal Greenland.
If the ‘rapid change in glacial movement’ is a consequence of temperatures in southern Greenland, a question seems to me to be raised about the GRL paper. If it is not a consequence of temperatures in southern Greenland, it seems to me that it would have been sensible for the ‘Science’ paper to say so. Then the Courier-Mail and other newspapers might not have misinterpreted the findings.
I realise that you haven’t said that the melting is apocalyptic, and I never suggested that you did. But I return to Jennifer’s initial comment: ‘Working out whether a particular piece of information is invented, real, real but exaggerated, etcetera, certainly takes effort.’
Jen reminds us that blogging can be both delightful and subversive introducing the odd additional theme. The “it’s SAM” was what we in Australia call a very mild joke, an attempt at humour. Sometimes in blogging we attempt to be humorous or even resort to “taking of the piss”. Of course I would never take cheap shots at an opponent during a debate though 🙂 (unless it was funny). .. OK seriously .. .
I’m sorry you think that the authors should have mentioned the GRL paper. I will personally write each a letter admonishing them for their disgraceful oversight. .. OK seriuously .. .
The relevance of the Antarctica information is that you can have cooling among the global warming ! And maybe for good reason. Not exactly 100% relevant for Greenland of course but reminds us that all may not be totally straightforward. I still commend it to you as it also illustrates how effects may change over time.
Meanwhile in Greenland what may have happened is that (and this is shooting from the hip – no House of Lords backup here)is that we may have decadal and global warming influences happening simultaneously. Perhaps the NAO indeed did demonstrate a slight cooling trend earlier in the current last 50 years, and it is now being overwhelmned by the global warming signal. Or perhaps the NAO has changed sign and/or SST anomalies changed !! On SST anomalies all I can put my hand on a short notice is the series from NOAA at: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo_2005.html
and
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ClimateIndices/
What do you think ?????
I apologise for the diversion Ian – but you can plot all manner of interesting indices at the NOAA site – might appeal to those more statistically inclined.
In terms of newspapers – well those guys are most interested in sensationalism than science and run hot and cold on the issue despite the quality of the argument. Sells papers though (maybe – unless you just wanted the racing form guide).
And in terms of my comments – some are addressing Rog’s assertions and suggestions – not just your own – see his first comment.
Notes:
SST = sea surface temperature (often as an anomaly)
NAO – North Atlantic Oscillation index
NOAA = US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Is it just me or does it seem that in Fig 4 of the GRL paper that the CGT are trending upwards and diverging in its relationship with the NAO. The authors themselves mention at the bottom of page one “Recent milder conditions .. ..” Why did not the authors undertake some GCM modelling to investigate this upwards trend and discrepancy when they would have known about trends in the ablation research. Shock – horror .. ..
No Phil, We weren’t discussing whether you could have cooling among the global warming. We all knew that, and I don’t see that it has any relevance to the subject we’re discussing.
In your last message, you say that the GRL paper is inconsistent with the ablation research and that that should have given the authors the cue to investigate ‘recent milder conditions.’ Well, yes: why do you say ‘shock – horror’? This would be all part of the process of reconciling the apparently inconsistent information. Remember that this ‘upwards trend’ at the end of the 44-year period would be subsumed in the net downward trend of 1.29 deg. C over the whole period.
For whatever reason, the reviewers of the GRL paper did not ask the authors to undertake the modelling that you suggest, and the reviewers of the ‘Science’ paper did not ask the authors to explain the apparent discrepancy with the GRL paper. And as I’ve pointed out, the IPCC reviewers can’t make up for the failings of the journal review process: their task is
‘merely to see if the IPCC report accurately reflected the journal publication – not to carry out additional review of the article.’
Ian – I can see why you are having trouble selling your economics trivia to the IPCC. Have a talk to Rog. Good day!
Sorry Phil, I dont have any business with IPCC so I may not be of any help to you.
Have you tried “phone a friend”? I believe that there a few cabbies around your area that have an insight to whats running.
I see the “usual suspects” have gathered but a few new people who seem interested in scientific facts rather than heresay.
I have copies of Rignot’s paper and a comment by Dowdeswell in the same edition of “Science” and I’ve visited one of the glaciers in question so I think I can usuefully add to the discussion.
I think Rignot has been misrepresented in the media releases, perhaps through his own doing perhaps someone else’s.
1. Glaciers in the north of the country are close to stable. Rignot’s table shows the SMB in 2000 at -0.7 and in 2005 at -2.3 but his maths looks dodgy and it looks like -0.4 might be the real SMB in 2005, which would mean a decrease in the loss of ice, not an increase.
2. Despite the above figures, according to widespread quotations, Rignot believes these glaciers are “waiting” to warm. What an absurdly mystical notion for a scientist! The glaciers are WAITING for something. Give me a break. I think I’ll tell my trees that they are going to be cut down one day and make them wait in suspense!
3. His figures for West Greenland are boosted by some “nonsurveyed” glaciers whose loss he has determined by extrapolation (linear?, exponential? – and how accurate?). Of the remainder only the Jakobhavn Isbrae and the Nordenskiold glacier showed an increasing loss. The latter I don’t know about but I have seen the former.
4. This leaves us with ONLY the glaciers in the south-east which are clearly melting at a greater rate.
5. The only reliable nearby meteorological data comes from Angmagssalik. (Type the name into the field on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ if you want to see the temperature data.) Only in the last 4 years has the annual average temperature been up around the level that it was at for a large part of 1925 to 1945 and in the last 2 years it has fallen. Go back beyond those 4 years to the next highest (1996) and the annual average temperature was higher than that for 17 years between 1928 and 1962. I wonder if the glaciers melted at a greater rate then and what slowed their melting. Could it be – dare I say it – completely natural ?
6. The reality is that there’s no GLOBAL warming here, not the “melting everywhere and filtering through the glaciers” idea, just some regional warming of the ocean water. The melting is most likely due to a warm patch of water which has often been just off the S-E coast of Greenland over the last 6 years or so. It’s a patch produced by an eddy of the North Atlantic Drift where the main current itself has gone on to melt Arctic ice north of Scandinavia and across the top of Siberia. (When I traveled up the west coast on a coastal ferry the captain said that winter sea ice was not coming as far south as it used to so I guess we can take it that the sea waters there are warmer too.)
7. If the image in Dowdeswell’s “perspective” is actually Kangerdlussuaq (see 8.) then I would suspect that this wide glacier is “grounded” glacier, just like the Jakobshavn Isbrae on the west coast which has also had an increase in the SMB loss. (This grounding would account for the width of these glaciers whereas a narrow valley would probably have dug a deeper trough and be grounded on fewer occasions.) It would seem most likely that these glaciers scrape along the rocks below the sea. (Granite abounds near Jakobshavn and provides a lot of resistance.) All we need is slightly warmer water to melts some of the low level ice and the friction is reduced and the glacier can accelerate.
8. The caption below the image of Jakobshavn Isbrae in Dowdeswell’s commentary is simply wrong. I visited this glacier at the start of September 2003 (ie. end of summer in the hottest year at Angmagssalik) and the “block” structure, that the caption attributes to icebergs breaking away from the glacier, commenced about 15km inland from the last small patches patch of open water! More on this, with pictures, at http://mclean.ch/climate/Green/green_science.htm.
What are we left with? It seems like just a gross exaggeration of patches of warm water undercutting some glaciers in specific areas of Greenland.
As for the other paper, yes, I reckon that the temperature trend at Angmagssalik between 1958 and 2001 probably was downward. Year 2002 was warmer, 2003 warmer still and now 2004 and 2005 back very close to 2002. Climate trends are dangerous and misleading beasts. If you pick your years carefully you can just about show any relationship – at Angmagssilak I can show a decline from 1930 to 1980 of about 2 degrees (4 deg/century) or an increase of about 2 degrees since 1993 (about 16 deg/century). As far as I can see, the only intelligent use of a climate trend is for comparison between locations using the same time period.
cheers
Dear Jen & all,
What I have notice is the politics of the Environment is sometimes far too regionalistic and people are not aware what is happening in other countries. Sometimes it is selfish!! I think we must have new a type of dynamic thinking that bridges differences in culture, race and even religion. This is highly significant!!!!!! Our Earth is our home!!! This should be our motto for all of us!!!!!!!
I think people around the world must chat to each other on common grounds to form a common understanding. People must appeciate each other on different views and opinions and angles which is generally sincere and etc.
I think the media in some countries are sometimes deplorable and sometimes the behaviour of media when doing stories is too hype and sensationalistic style of broadcasting which usually put people off the news. They like to create a spin which usually swamps the truth of the story.
I also think governments including the US government and government of the rest of Europe must set an example and stop playing politics with the environment because our planet is so delicate. Sometimes governments use political manoevring for other issues concerning economy. I also think environmental disasters increase rapidly worldwide including US, Europe and the rest of the world and therefore there will be no economy left to run to due to Gloablaisation as well as mutinationals are inter facets and etc.
These are some examples which I could I think at this present time and maybe there are other factors which I have not stated yet but in due time I will mention it and etc.
Opps!!!!! Correction of spelling: Globalisation!!!!! I usually type too fast!!!
Suggest people have a look at the data themselves to understand the recent science paper. There is no conflict between the Science paper and the GRL paper. Various station data for the region can be found at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ .
Simply click on Greenland and browse the stations. Couple of things are evident. First the “cooling” trend from ~1950 to 2000 has reversed dramatically and recent temperatures are widely the highest in the records – see station Angmagasslik for example. Secondly, the 1950 to 2000 cooling trend appears to have only partly compensated for a marked early 20th century warming. The century long trend is for very marked warming.
David
David, Thanks for the link to GISS data, which are interesting. They confirm the sparsity of instrumental records for Greenland in recent times
You say that ‘recent temperatures are widely the highest in the records’ and cite Angmagasslik as an example. I’m puzzled at this, because the chart that comes up for me when I click on this station (65.6 deg. N, 37.6 deg. W) shows on visual inspection that 6 of the 7 ‘hottest’ (above zero!) years since records began in the late 19th century were between 1925 and 1955. Am I looking at the wrong series?
I agree that temperatures at Angmagasslik (and presumably other stations) in the past five years have been higher than in earlier years in the 20-odd year period for which estimates of melt extent are available, and in the light of that I accept that there is no conflict between the Science and GRL papers.
Is anything known about how present melt extent compares with the 1930s and 1940s? Or why there was a marked early 20th century warming? Or how present temperatures in southern Greenland compare with the early middle ages, when Rhys Jones said that oats were sown there? Do climate scientists dispute this, or believe that it is irrelevant?
I’m not trying to score points. I’m genuinely interested in your views on these questions.
Since sending my last post I’ve noted that Ferdinand Engelbeen has posted a comment on the Science article on RC, at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=258#comment-8935
Of course Rhys Jones said that oats were ‘grown’ in southern Greenland in the early middle ages, not merely that they were ‘sown’.
To put the statement in context, he also said that at that time vines were grown in north Yorkshire and cattle were taken across Alpine passes from south Germany to northern Italian markets.
>Is anything known about how present melt extent compares with the 1930s and 1940s? Or why there was a marked early 20th century warming? Or how present temperatures in southern Greenland compare with the early middle ages, when Rhys Jones said that oats were sown there? Do climate scientists dispute this, or believe that it is irrelevant?
I have not seen figures on melt though it is concievable that the Danish Met Service (or similar have these). The early 20th century warming appears to be an amplified version of the Northern Hemisphere variations which have been largely put down to natural variability (with a possible slight anthropogenic component).
It would be relatively straightforward to use a thermodynamic melt model to calculate likely melt rates, though much less straightforward to calculate glacier movement rates. It is far beyond my area of expertise so I will not hazard a guess what the analyses would show.
The clearest thing that comes from Greenland’s data is its extreme climate variability and hences it relative uselessness as an indicator of global climate changes happening on “century time scales”. We have already seen how this region cooled strongly while the rest of the world was warming or at least changing little, while the warming over the past decade has been (probably) about 10 times more rapid than the global average.
It is quite true that data from this strange land has been used to both “prove” and “disprove” anthropogenic warming when it can do neither.
David
Joe says: “Call me stupid.
I thought people once lived on Greensland, didn’t they?”
Ok. You are stupid. Feel better now?
56,375 people currently live on Greenland, which is far more than the population during Viking times. The Vikings decamped for political reasons, not because of the end of the so-called Medieval Warm Period.
I am starting to notice that the media is getting confused!!!!!! They are getting confused with the different types of models or various types of calculations for Global Warming. We are hearing conflicting reports from various scientists and media sources. Also sensationalistic reporting does not help at all and hype reports swamps the real data and information on the Global Warming issue. What chance does the average Joe in the street understands what is going on Climate Change? No chance at all I think to myself!!!!! But one thing is definitely certain is ‘the world’s climate is changing rapidly and unexpectedly’.
Dear Jen & all,
I am starting to notice that the media is getting confused!!!!!! They are getting confused with the different types of models or various types of calculations for Global Warming. We are hearing conflicting reports from various scientists and media sources. Also sensationalistic reporting does not help at all and hype reports swamps the real data and information on the Global Warming issue. What chances does the average Joe in the street understands what is going on Climate Change? No chance at all I think to myself!!!!! But one thing is definitely certain is ‘the world’s climate is changing rapidly and unexpectedly’.