Greenland's Ice Melting

Referring to my post in ImaGeo, this is an interesting follow-up @ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141215154522.htm

 

I count myself fortunate to have actually seen Greenland, albeit from an airplane. Flying back from Germany it was unusually crystal clear weather and the glaciers and icebergs were beautiful......I cussed myself for putting my camera in the checked luggage. Curious, is there any evidence that the ice sheet ever disappeared in past interglacial periods?? If so, Florida better start packing......

 

gorgeous pic as usual Longknife, my eyes thank you

actually it has been even smaller during this interglacial

Think Greenland's ice sheet is small today? It was smaller—as small as it has ever been in recent history—from 3-5,000 years ago, according to scientists who studied the ice sheet's history using a new technique they developed for interpreting the Arctic fossil record.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-greenland-shrunken-ice-sheet-weve.html#jCp

 

Interesting...so this is a fluctuation WITHIN the current interglacial.

 

Wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE....that study saying the ice was smaller thousands of years ago is counter to the SETTLED SCIENCE that man is causing it and it is an extraordinary event. Those "scientists" and their workdon't exist, according the Obama, Gore, and the rest.......

 

The history of the Vikings in Greenland comes to mind here. When they first settled there it was relatively ice free and had a moderate climate but then....

"Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders' houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures, like the great hall at Brattahlid, they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might benefit from the animals' body heat."

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

 

Greenland is melting at record rates...

Study: Night Clouds Promote Greenland Ice Melt
January 12, 2016 - Greenland is melting at record rates, and scientists want to know why.

See also:

Antarctic Ice May Hide ‘World’s Largest’ Canyon
January 13, 2016 | Researchers say they believe they have found the world’s largest canyon - located under the Antarctic ice.

 

Yeah I always love when some Greenland glacier is receding and catastrophists scream 'unprecedented in over 100,000 years' only to have it reveal a viking settlement.

 

LOL. Never happened!

A really idiotic denier cult myth that you may have just pulled out of your butt.

 

Beautiful picture.

The reality underneath...

Here is another study, this one very recent, confirming the accelerating melting of the Greenland ice cap.

Greenlands Glaciers Melt Faster -- Research
The Science Times
Anna Amad
Jan 11, 2016


The fast melt off of ice caps caused by global warming has alarmed scientists from various parts of the globe like Canada, Denmark and Greenland.

The entire world saw a rise in sea levels due to the melting ice caps caused by global warming. And just a few days ago, a new study revealed that those glaciers in Greenland can now also contribute to the problem as they started melting off faster than scientists first thought.

A group of scientists from various parts of Canada, Denmark and Greenland has conducted a study regarding the alarming speed of melting ice sheets. One of the things the researchers found out is the porous layer called "firn" that is previously known to absorb melt water in order to stop it from flowing straight to the ocean that has already started collapsing. It is due to the massive amount of melt water that its sponge like ability can no longer take. And because of that, this firn layer had turned into solid ice and no longer absorbs or takes even just the slightest amount of liquid that comes from the melting Greenland glaciers.

The researchers added in their statement that the worsening condition of the global warming phenomenon might have caused the firn to go over the edge. According to Horst Macguth, a researcher at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and lead author of the study, their findings showed how the firn layer reacts when it goes through a bad stage of climate change. Their research also revealed that the firn's capability to absorb and hold large amount of ice water is not as strong as previously thought.

William Colgan, a professor from York University and study co-author, explained in his statement that even though the firn layer can fix and recreate itself through time, the melting of the glaciers in the area is much faster. Just a few days ago, thousands of new mini rivers and ponds were spotted all across the vast fields of ice. The scientists added that if the glaciers in Greenland melt completely, it would result into at least a 23 feet increase in seawater level.

 

If you've never seen "Chasing Ice" go watch it ASAP. It's on Netflix and probably Amazon Prime. Video doesn't lie and you can see through time lapse photography how fast glaciers are melting. Who cares if they were smaller before or if they will get bigger again? The point is humans can't survive like we do now if they melt. So I guess we could just accept it and watch Florida and the rest of our coast disappear, or we could actually use our big problem solving brains to try to at least slow it down to natural cyclical levels which in geological time could buy us thousands or maybe even millions of years.

 

so, just a question, do you think they have melted before?
question, is Florida still there?

 

Yes, but a good amount of North America was under water in geological history including Florida. My backyard in Denver was a beach front. Could humanity survive that? Probably, but by without massive casualties. What harm can come from taking care of our only planet?

 

People forget that, at one time, the entire Mississippi Valley and the Great Basin were both inland seas.

 

Earth will do what earth will do and man will adapt or perish. You hand wringers need to buck up

 

Well once upon a time North America was attached to other modern day continents as part of the supercontinent "Pangaea".

And? What is it you'd like for me to take care of on the planet? What can you show proof of to make any changes?

Do you know whether the core of the hemisphere has stopped moving?

 

Why are you opposed to being proactive? I thought humans were supposedly this superior species capable of shaping our own fate and future? Sitting back, bucking up and adapting or not is what all the other species do. I guess we are actually on the same level as non-human animals after all.

 

I'd like you and the rest of us to pump less pollution into the air and water. I'd like you and the rest of us to not produce so much trash that we create waste islands the size of Texas in every ocean. I'd like for you and the rest of us to leave some frigging land undeveloped where other animals can actually exist. I'd love for you and the rest of us to stop eating species into extinction.

Why are you opposed to being proactive? What harm comes from raping this planet less? We put smoke detectors in our homes so we don't die in fires. We put airbags in cars so we survive accidents. We have no fly lists to try to catch terrorists. Why are you opposed to preventing environmental disaster? Without quality air, water, soil we have nothing. Our natural RESOURCES are the most important. Life is so fragile. Chemical reactions requiring specific factors and environments. Mess with it too much and life will not be possible and we are setting this planet up to look like Mars. Why would we do that when we have the ability to make sure that doesn't happen? Your house may never catch fire, but you still have smoke detectors. You may never be in an accident, but your baby is still in a car seat. What is the harm?

 

I am being pro active, I drive a car that gets 30 miles to the gallon rather than 20 miles.
I recycle all I can per my town's agreement.
I have double and triple pane windows in my house to use less fuel in the winter and less electricity in the summer.
I moved closer to work years ago to cut down on travel time and time my car is running.
I have a gas furnace, much more reliable than electric heat and uses natural gas.
I cook using natural gas
I heat my water via natural gas,
I added a natural gas insert in my fireplace and no longer burn wood and make it much more reliable heating source.

The thingy that you can't except is that people are changing how they live. Now you want more of what you have no control over. Be a genius and find that next generation energy to reduce the gas and coal plants. To date, no one has figured that out. Wind and Solar can't do it, and you're only fooling yourself to think otherwise.

Electric cars although very cool, are very unreliable for most people and why they have no future.

You use products like your PC that are made from oil, and yet here you are on a web site using it. Throw it away and stop using all of the things you find insulting to you against mother earth. Prove your own point by living how you preach.

Put some skin in your game dude.

 

Earth is not subject to mans whims, wants or needs. You can't be proactive with earth only reactive, adapt or perish

 

I agree that earth is not subject to human whim, but is it not vulnerable to our actions? You still didn't answer the question of what is the harm of lessening our impact as much as possible?

 

When "our impact" is C02 the harm is addressing a false problem instead of focusing on real pollution where we have a real impact. Man is responsible for s tiny fraction of earth's C02 and any tiny shift in the major producers of C02 one way or the other makes our tiny contribution irrelevant. It is much ado about nothing.

 

well first one would need to know what CO2 is doing. And right now, there is no evidence it does anything. So, unless you have some evidence, I'm not sure what the point is looking at CO2. BTW, I gave you things I was doing to help with pollution and the planet, and you never replied. So what is it you think should be done with CO2 since it doesn't affect the planet but in a good way. Ask the plants. Aren't the plants part of earth and shouldn't we be focusing on doing great things for them? CO2 is food for them and they respond very well with an increase of it.

Heck we put catalytic converters on cars to pump out more CO2.

 

Delusional denial of reality. Also called 'sticking your head in the sand'.

In the real world....

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action
The American Geophysical Union

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer‐term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human‐induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways ‐‐ some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human‐induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low‐latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.

 

Yes that is the AGW hypothesis and dogma but in the real world.....

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”