It’s so hot it’s cold
Melting Greenland glacier appears to be growing again https://t.co/pBY6sqBXTQ pic.twitter.com/EP1G1atsGA
— New York Post (@nypost) March 26, 2019
From the link
A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds.
The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience.
Of course, there has to be naysaying
Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.
“That was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,†said Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland ice and climate scientist Jason Box. “The good news is that it’s a reminder that it’s not necessarily going that fast. But it is going.â€
Why is it happening?
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation — a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific.
The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said.
While this is “good news†on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author.
Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
See? Growing is natural, shrinking is strictly your fault for driving a fossil fueled vehicle instead of taking the train and eating burgers instead of insects.
See? Porter Good once again is compelled to advertise that he is abysmally ignorant of the fact that weather is not climate.
Oh, you mean like science is “consensus”, not proof?
the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation
Merriam Webster.
Wonderful. formwiz can cut and paste a definition — but still exhibits no actual understanding of the term.
Are glaciers growing or retreating?
http://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm
While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.
Glaciers respond directly and quickly to atmospheric conditions. As temperatures warm, summer melting increases. However, accumulation of ice in the winter also increases due to more snowfall. Air temperature tends to play the dominant role – there’s a strong statistical correlation between air temperature and glacier fluctuations over large distances (Greene 2005). Generally, when air temperatures warm, glaciers recede.
Consequently, because they’re so sensitive to changes in temperature, glaciers provide clues about the effects of global warming. Glacier mass balance is measured through a variety of techniques. Direct glaciological methods include ablation stakes, snow pits and snow probing. This data is then combined with independent geodetic surveys, collected and published by the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS).
Over the period 1946–2005, the WGMS have monitored 228 glaciers. In the early years, just several glaciers were monitored. Over time, observations from more glaciers across the globe were added to the database, giving us a broader picture of global glacier mass balance. The highest quality glacier observations are ongoing, continuous and long term. There are 30 glaciers in 9 different mountain ranges that have been continuously measured since 1976 (11 of them reaching back to 1960 and earlier). These are considered ‘reference glaciers’. Figure 1 shows the total number of glaciers monitored since 1946. The black and dark grey bar indicate the number of reference glaciers.
Figure 1: Observed glaciers from 1946 to 2006 (Zemp 2009).
What do these glacier observations reveal? The following table shows the mass balance of individual glaciers over 2002 and 2003. Negative values indicate shrinkage. We see that there are isolated glaciers that are growing. However, focusing solely on these few glaciers to indicate global glacier growth paints a very misleading picture. The vast majority of glaciers are receding. And importantly, the shrinking trend is increasing (eg – 77% in 2002, 94% in 2003).
WGMS Glacier Mass Balance over 2002 and 2003
Figure 2: Glacier Mass Balance over 2002 (blue) and 2003 (red). (WGMS)
In its 2011 report, the WGMS measured 136 glaciers from Antarctica to Canada and from Bolivia to Japan, and found that almost 90% are shrinking (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Percentage of shrinking and growing glaciers in 2008–2009, from the 2011 WGMS report
A group of 37 reference glaciers which have been measured continuously for decades were used to provide some statistics. On average, glaciers lost around 60 cm (~ 2 feet) of thickness in each of 2008 and 2009, close to the average for this decade but faster than the ’90s, and much faster than the ’80s.
What about the long term trend in global glacier mass change? There are several method to calculating global glacier mass change. One way is to use the average value of the 30 reference glaciers. Another is to calculate the moving average of all available glaciers. The results for both methods are displayed in Figure 4. The orange line is the average mass change of the 30 reference glaciers. The blue line includes all glaciers.
Figure 4: Cumulative mass balance curves for the mean of all glaciers and 30 ‘reference’ glaciers (WGMS 2008).
Both approaches show consistent results (with all glaciers showing a slightly faster drop in mass compared to the 30 reference glaciers). There is strong mass loss in the first decade from 1945. Note that at this time, there were only several glaciers monitored – not quite a global sample. The mass loss slows down in the second decade so that around 1970, global mass balance was close to zero. Glaciers were in near equilbrium which indicates glacier shrinkage in the late 20th Century is essentially a response to post-1970 global warming (Greene 2005).
After 1975, glacier shrinkage continues to accelerate until present. The mass loss from 1996 to 2005 is more than double the mass loss rate in the previous decade of 1986 to 1995 and over four times the mass loss rate over 1976 to 1985. When you narrowly focus on a few cherry picked glaciers, you can be misled into an incorrect view of global glacier trends. When you take in the broader picture, you see that globally, glaciers are shrinking at an accelerating rate.
They can’t retreat unless they designate a fall back position.
Really, using a global bull site to justify something is a joke. Try a place with a little objectivity, not one using hockey sticks.
formwiz is still throwing his shit, though nothing sticks.
What he cannot do — what he lacks the actual intellectual integrity to do — is discuss the science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERLd15drxDA
It doesn’t just have a dam at Aswan, does it?
“Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.”
Did everyone notice that Porter Good utterly ignored this inconvenient fact?
Maybe because it’s utter nonsense?
If formwiz has hard scientific data showing that the oceans are not warming, he is welcome to present it here.
Or, he can simply continue to throw random bullshit against the wall and hope something sticks.
Nothing new. Glaciers were melting early last century with CO2 much lower. https://realclimatescience.com/2016/01/disappearing-glaciers/
Jl’s link does not address the rate at which glaciers are melting now, compared with the past.
Nothing new. Denialists gaslight the ignorant, and the ignorant swallow the horseshit without a moment’s critical thought.
And here I’d heard there was more ice than ever. It’s been a bad week for the Lefties and Whiny The Poo is feelin’ the Bern.
Leftists gaslight the ignorant, and the ignorant swallow the horseshit without a moment’s critical thought.
FIFY
Hewlett Packard could use her. Dim bulb, but projects like you wouldn’t believe.
Where did you ever get that idea? http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/09/new-paper-glacier-melt-rates-were-up-to-3-times-greater-faster-during-early-20th-century/
http://notrickszone.com/2016/03/20/analysis-finds-no-correlation-between-glacier-melt-and-co2-melting-much-slower-today-than-1930s/
“And here I’d heard there was more ice than ever.”
Where did formwiz hear this?
What actual hard scientific evidence can formwiz present to back up this claim?
Let’s sit back and watch as formwiz hurls more random, fact-free crap, hoping against hope that something sticks.
He was probably talking about this: Stein et al 2017. More Ice now than over the past ten thousand years. http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/
The primary difficulty when discussing climate change is that everyone feels the need to resort to the mutterings of experts. No one can physically observe climate change themselves. If left to your own devices, no one would ever know that there is such a thing as Climate Change, and you certainly wouldn’t be willing to pay higher prices on anything to “fight” it. So everyone here is in exactly the same boat of linking to their favored “experts” and getting very emotionally attached to the “science” when no one here has any personal experience in this “science”.
But I do have personal experience in paying my energy bills. I can tell you with certainty that a higher price that I pay for no apparent benefit is not very logical. That is why it will take a government to force me to comply. I can see and understand air pollution. I can see and understand littering. I can see and understand dumping mining tailings into rivers. I can’t see or understand a 1/2 degree increase in global average temperatures over a century which may or may not translate into any measurable change in my area.
I can tell you with certainty that I did have personal experience in this “science”. I collected ocean temperatures for the US Navy over several decades. I detected zero change in ocean temperatures. ZERO. Now you can all run off and tell me I didn’t see what I really saw and how I don’t understand how to take a direct measurement of ocean temperatures. But you are going to need to bring something more to the table than “someone else told me so”.
Also, the term “science” is over-used with regard to climate change. Measuring and monitoring trends in climate are science, but once you make a prediction about the future, you have just left science behind. Any future predictions, no matter the basis, is fantasy. They may come true. They may not come true. But they are never “science”.