Greenland - What Do We Know, What Is The Long Term Future And Is There Any Evidence Of A Melt Out?

[BornFromTheVoid]

The thing is though Ian, NASA told us that we knew how the sun worked and went on to forecast the highest activity ever recorded for this current cycle. This on it's own set alarm bells ringing throughout the climate change community when it failed to materialise and is in fact the complete opposite. Not exactly the confidence builder the community needs. I am even more cautious when it comes to NASA claiming something now. I should imagine there are a great number of others asking why we should trust their findings in one form or another..

They never claimed to know how the sun worked. They made a prediction based on their understanding at the time, it turned out wrong. So they learn more and try to develop a better understanding.

The reason why they should be believed in this instance, is that it's not just NASA that claim we're altering our atmosphere and climate faster than any known natural process, it's because the evidence for that claim comes from a wide range of institutions across the planet, from thousands of scientists and from numerous lines of investigation, studying various aspects of the biosphere. Yet they're almost entirely in agreement.

That's where the confidence for their claims comes from.

[Methuselah]

They never claimed to know how the sun worked. They made a prediction based on their understanding at the time, it turned out wrong. So they learn more and try to develop a better understanding.

The reason why they should be believed in this instance, is that it's not just NASA that claim we're altering our atmosphere and climate faster than any known natural process, it's because the evidence for that claim comes from a wide range of institutions across the planet, from thousands of scientists and from numerous lines of investigation, studying various aspects of the biosphere. Yet they're almost entirely in agreement.

That's where the confidence for their claims comes from.

Aye Sam. And some well-known sceptics even pretend to make weather-'forecasts' based upon what they think they might, possibly 'know' about the sun...

IMO, until someone comes up with a way of tracking each and every photon's random path, from its generation until its ejection from the solar surface, we'll all be forever guessing...

[pottyprof]

They never claimed to know how the sun worked. They made a prediction based on their understanding at the time, it turned out wrong. So they learn more and try to develop a better understanding.

Fair enough. They made an arrogant claim that they said in many words that surmounted to the same thing only to admit in a live internet broadcast that what they though they knew was incorrect.

I'm not saying all the work they turn out is incorrect. If that's how you see what I said, that ain't my fault.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Fair enough. They made an arrogant claim that they said in many words that surmounted to the same thing only to admit in a live internet broadcast that what they though they knew was incorrect.

I'm not saying all the work they turn out is incorrect. If that's how you see what I said, that ain't my fault.

I'm not sure what they admitted or when, but it is clear to everyone that their forecast for this solar cycle was a disaster. I presume that the reason they hyped their forecast, was less to do with arrogance, and more to do with the risks involved with strong flare/CMEs, now that we're so reliant of satellite technology and communications for our everyday lives and a general high-tech infrastructure with no fall backs.

I didn't interpret your post as saying everything they do is incorrect. I was just responding to your lines...

"I am even more cautious when it comes to NASA claiming something now. I should imagine there are a great number of others asking why we should trust their findings in one form or another."

...with reason as to why their claims of us changing things faster than known natural processes can be trusted.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you need to collect all you 'think' you know about the changes we have been monitoring across Greenland over the past 30yrs and figure what you think this info is telling you P.P.?

If the data and physical changes still leave you not knowing what is beginning to occur there then you need to figure out what it is that you would need to see before you were able to discern what is going on?

Below is a table to help you sort your thinking on this based on Moss and Yohe, 2011.

Confidence

Level Possible Contributing Factors

Very High Strong evidence;

(established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented and accepted methods, etc.), high consensus

High Moderate evidence;

(several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/or documentation limited, etc.), medium consensus

Medium Suggestive evidence;

(a few sources, limited consistency, models incomplete, methods emerging, etc.), competing schools of thought

Low Inconclusive evidence;

(limited sources, extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor documentation and/or methods not tested, etc.), disagreement or lack of opinions among experts

These threads are a mixture of discussion and new evidence. As long as the 'discussion' is supported by the evidence it would make sense that any rebutal is based within the discapline being discussed?

To say we should not trust any scientific body because it has erred , due to lack of info/understanding ,in the past,is very limiting?

The way we see sea level rise estimates rising over recent years (the IPCC did not include melt from Greenland and Antarctic the last time around due to lack of confidence in the data hence the study that has gone into the science in the years since) and now the actual sea level rises on the increase (with thermal expansion no longer the major contributor) then I feel it very important to understand the speed at which the increases will occur?

We know from past ge-glaciations the earth experienced meltwater 'pulses' as key areas went into collapse. These were the glacial ice sheets in collapse but it does not mean that our present ice sheets will show a similar 'staggered' sequence of collapse and slow as the ice ablates?

If Sandy showed us what 8" in a century can do then what of 8" in a decade? I have heard commentators like Hansen even wonder at a number of feet before mid century so what would that do to ecconomies/infra structures?

Edited December 9, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

It's a good job we don't allow ourselves the luxury of time when watching volcanoes? Another dynamic system that we know little about but enough to know the danger signs?

Seeing as NASA tells us that our forcing is twenty times faster than any 'natural' forcing how can we use proxy studies to see the time-line of Greenland's collapse? We can tell that Greenland is very quick to react to Temperature forcings in the past but what occurs when those forcings are way faster than previously experienced?

The collapse of ice sheets would appear to need the wisdom of structural engineers to fully understand how the ice sheet will react in collapse (which is why I use the 'Dam' as my analogy)

What we are now beginning to see is the start of the draining of the interior ice sheet (since mass loss overtook mass gain) and this will have both temperature driven changes and gravity driven changes to the ice as it begins it's interior structural failure.

The changes due to gravity do not depend on Temperature but on the structure of the ice below (from crystal size to massive ice blocks) and , like a game of Jenga, the loss of one small section will lead to total and rapid collapse even if the signs are not visible from the surface.

We know a lot of the past melt is held in the snow cover but now this snow cover is in melt and so we can expect releases far greater than pure snow would give. Some of this is simple run off but the majority migrates through the ice mass eroding passages, and eventually caves, below the ice. These changes are not visible but from studying drain glaciers we can assume that the process is just as established in the ice sheet behind.

We know ice failure seismic activity is on the increase across Greenland.

How long before we start to see surface changes in the ice surface highlighting failures below? Once failure occurs the surface area of the ice exposed to running water explodes meaning the detritus from the collapse will melt out far faster than the 'solid ice' would leaving further caverns for the ice to collapse into.

This process will not be a 'year by year' spectacle but a month by month accelerating event.

As I've said above I believe that all the past can show us is that Greenland can and does melt with certain Temp/GHG levels imposed. Though temp has been pegged (dimming and the niceties of climate inertia?) GHG levels lead us to a time when Greenland carried at least 1/3 less ice. I am in no doubt that over the lifetime of the GHG's we would see such a reduction in ice mass but , sadly, the story has not ended has it? With natures contributions of the dormant Carbon cycle and our continuation to break emissions record (with Fracking now promising to continue this for another 60 years min) we do not know how much of Greenland we will free from ice.

Of course Greenland is small Beer when compared to Antarctica and what we see across Greenland we will see occur there also. current GHG's promise an ice Free West Antarctic during the lifetime of those GHG's and the loss of that ice entails the loss of Ross embayment (holding back the ice from the East Antarctic Ice sheets....as we have seen in past epochs) but again we do not know what the final figure of GHG's would be even if we ceased their production today?

Any system that double output every 4 years will entail massive losses over a very small time frame. Sadly , ice being ice, this figure will not remain stable and the time period for doubling will shorten over time as ever more ice collapses to reveal more surface and elevations drop bring more ice into the melt zones.

All of this MAY be true but the thing is, we don't know and every new claim which says we do know seems more and more ridiculous. I'd have far more empathy for the argument if just every now and again, those throwing out such alarmist claims would actually say "this is one of many possible scenario's" or even "this is worse case scenario". It's the claimed certainty which doesn't hold any water.

As for what we can actually do, well I can't do any more. I'm not going to spend my time doing a poor imitation of the boy with his finger in the dyke whilst simultaneously wringing my hands in woe. If the risks to humanity are as vast as being portrayed then governments will have to respond to them. Whilst I see little concern from world governments, other than half ar##d efforts to change energy generation, (and that's got more to do with running out of fossil fuels/not wanting to be held to ransom by nations which have plenty) I see no reason for personal woe and worry. The scientific debate is an interesting puzzle, sometimes engaging but all too often diluted by personal goals and generally speaking, the way the science is processed nowadays leaves a lot to be desired - fame and fortune coupled with media hype has hijacked the subject to the point that it's increasingly difficult to have faith in much of what is produced.

[pottyprof]

I think you need to collect all you 'think' you know about the changes we have been monitoring across Greenland over the past 30yrs and figure what you think this info is telling you P.P.?

I think it's telling me that 30 years is not long enough to work out what's happening other than ice melts when temperatures rise, which, to be honest, I can switch my freezer off and open the door to work that out. It also tells me that we're due to warm up some more because we are still below average in the temperature stakes.

[Gray-Wolf]

P.P.? Greenland has just had it's warmest year on record? It has seen it's albedo plunge to record lows, it has seen pterman calve further back than past recorded? we've seen the northern landfast ice obliterated and many of ther glacier fronts on the north coast retreat further inland than ever before, we saw 97% melt on 3 occasions over summer? we see an anomalous H.P., looking tied into the losses becomeing established on the south of the island throwing the NAO into a deep, year on year negative.

Even now we keep seeing positive uppers smashing into West/SW Greenland and Fohn enhanced uppers flowing off the east coast over the ocean and Iceland yet you still think we are seeing below average temps? Does that include the November record breaking temps over the Northern most weather station on Greenland? Does it take into account that from a La Nina chilled start of the years global temps have risen into the top 4 global temps on record?

EDIT More info on the melt;

http://www.greenlandmelting.com/1/post/2012/11/updated-paper-on-records-in-greenland-in-2012-published.html

Edited December 10, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

P.P.? Greenland has just had it's warmest year on record? It has seen it's albedo plunge to record lows, it has seen pterman calve further back than past recorded? we've seen the northern landfast ice obliterated and many of ther glacier fronts on the north coast retreat further inland than ever before, we saw 97% melt on 3 occasions over summer? we see an anomalous H.P., looking tied into the losses becoming established on the south of the island throwing the NAO into a deep, year on year negative.

Did you miss the bit where I said we're due to warm some more? Did you miss the bit where I said Ice melts when temperatures rise? Perhaps the way I see things now is more frightening as we have absolutely no control over it whatsoever?

[Gray-Wolf]

Information is control P.P.?

If we have enough warning of upcoming rapid changes we can plan for those changes before we are forced to?

[pottyprof]

Information is control P.P.?

If we have enough warning of upcoming rapid changes we can plan for those changes before we are forced to?

As I've said before with regards to planning, I agree. Greenland is having a problem with extra melt with the potential to make life difficult for many people. Our leaders need to get their finger out. Who's going to make them? Not you or I Ian. We have about 1 metre of sea rise to go before we can say if natural variation is the cause of this extra melt, not that nature isn't capable of making things worse than this projection but I'll buy you a beer or two at Donny on sea and we can discuss "what next?"

[knocker]

Dark Snow Project.

http://darksnowproject.org/

[Gray-Wolf]

If we used the sea level rise from Greenland alone as quoted in Knockers link (2006-2012 0.8mm/year) and apply the 4 year doubling of mass loss we appear to be seeing we get;

year 1 0.8mm, first doubling 1.6mm, second doubling, 3.2mm, 3rd doubling 6.4mm, 4th doubling 12.8mm, 5th doubling 25.6mm, 6th doubling 51.2mm and 7th doubling 102.4mm.

This is less than the 30yr period that some folk feel it is prudent to wait whilst we collect data to asses the trend? I think by the time we are seeing 3" a year folk would have been calling for action for many years!!!

The above would also have contibutions from Antarctica to be added and I'd say that the losses from there would dwarf Greenlands efforts?

They say the 8" over the past century made the Sandy disaster inevitable (75 billion$ of damage!!!) so what happens when we see 3" a decade???

Edited December 11, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

This was a study up to 2010 but gives a good detailed look at the Greenland glaciers. Apologies if it's been posted before. I hate to think what the update with the 2012 observations will show..

http://bprc.osu.edu/MODIS/

[knocker]

I don't know whether this site has been uploaded before but quite interesting for monitoring the Greenland ice sheet.

http://jupiter.geus.dk/promiceWWW/home.seam

[knocker]

Massive Iceberg Breaks off Greenland

If you missed this video before it's worth a look.

http://tumblr.thefjp.org/post/37859573777/http-www-guardian-co-uk-environment-video-2012-dec-12-ch

[Gray-Wolf]

Beat me to it!!! 7.6km3 of ice smashed into the sea in 175min calve!!!

That's, like the man says in the clip, Manhatten going belly up and rolling around???

Anyone doubt the power of gravity once the ice is compromised just take a look at the Vid.

Soon enough this will be sections of the interior if melt rates continue to accelerate.

[pottyprof]

Anyone doubt the power of gravity once the ice is compromised just take a look at the Vid.

I especially like the part that says it's the first time it has been observed....

Interesting though.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/4861/2012/tcd-6-4861-2012.pdf

A paper looking at how increased melt of the marine terminating Glaciers in Greenland may be causing a feedback loop drawing in ever more warm Atlantic waters to melt ever more of the glacier.

[knocker]

Abstract. Over the last two decades, the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) has been losing mass at an increasing rate, enhancing its contribution to sea-level rise (SLR). The recent increases in ice loss appear to be due to changes in both the surface mass balance of the ice sheet and ice discharge (ice flux to the ocean). Rapid ice flow directly affects the discharge, but also alters ice-sheet geometry and so affects climate and surface mass balance. Present-day ice-sheet models only represent rapid ice flow in an approximate fashion and, as a consequence, have never explicitly addressed the role of ice discharge on the total GrIS mass balance, especially at the scale of individual outlet glaciers. Here, we present a new-generation prognostic ice-sheet model which reproduces the current patterns of rapid ice flow. This requires three essential developments: the complete solution of the full system of equations governing ice deformation; a variable resolution unstructured mesh to resolve outlet glaciers and the use of inverse methods to better constrain poorly known parameters using observations. The modelled ice discharge is in good agreement with observations on the continental scale and for individual outlets. From this initial state, we investigate possible bounds for the next century ice-sheet mass loss. We run sensitivity experiments of the GrIS dynamical response to perturbations in climate and basal lubrication, assuming a fixed position of the marine termini. We find that increasing ablation tends to reduce outflow and thus decreases the ice-sheet imbalance. In our experiments, the GrIS initial mass (im)balance is preserved throughout the whole century in the absence of reinforced forcing, allowing us to estimate a lower bound of 75 mm for the GrIS contribution to SLR by 2100. In one experiment, we show that the current increase in the rate of ice loss can be reproduced and maintained throughout the whole century. However, this requires a very unlikely perturbation of basal lubrication. From this result we are able to estimate an upper bound of 140 mm from dynamics only for the GrIS contribution to SLR by 2100.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1561/2012/tc-6-1561-2012.pdf

[knocker]

Greenland documentary by CCTV

12/26/2012

Here's a link to a documentary on Greenland featuring myself, Asa Rennermalm and Scott Luthcke (on the science side).

The documentary was aired on the Special Edition of Christmas Eve on CCTV - America's Now show (here's the link to the original CCTV site http://cctv.cntv.cn/.../01/index.shtml).

Most of the scenes of water rushing into the ice and other similar footage were collected by our team in the field in 2011.

Enjoy !

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qgnvbMwRaf8

Edited December 28, 2012 by knocker

[knocker]

Update on Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Loss: Exponential?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20121226_GreenlandIceSheetUpdate.pdf

[pottyprof]

Update on Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Loss: Exponential?

There's no reason why the loss shouldn't follow an exponential route. It's been a bit warm these last few years. Before long they'll have larger grasslands and be breeding cattle and sheep. Might be good for a weeks break sometime soon. I wonder if they'll open a Viking centre over there?

[knocker]

There's no reason why the loss shouldn't follow an exponential route.

Why? I've been told we are in a cooling period.

[laserguy]

Before long they'll have larger grasslands and be breeding cattle and sheep. Might be good for a weeks break sometime soon. I wonder if they'll open a Viking centre over there?

That sounds neat. You can tell that this (A)GW lark is cobblers by the fact that even tho' the good bits of a warmer world are far preferable to a cooler one, all you ever hear from the Church of AGW is doom and destruction and general negativity. Mention must never be made of the myriad advantages lest it imparts the wrong message. Wonder how much a fortnight in Thule will set me back?