|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 21, 2010 14:47:48 GMT
The question is: How long has Greenland been loosing ice mass? Is the current loss anything out of the ordinary for the past 8,000 years?
|
|
|
Post by william on Aug 21, 2010 15:01:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 21, 2010 17:51:04 GMT
The question is: How long has Greenland been loosing ice mass? Is the current loss anything out of the ordinary for the past 8,000 years? Yes. As you can see from socold's graphs, earth's history began in 1978 when everything was stabile. Note however John Cook doesn't question the data from GRACE because it supports his POV. Like the hockey stick, no matter how shoddy the data or outdated the study, you can be sure it will be classified as "the science" infinium at SkepticalScience (an oxymoron). Does anyone really think John Cook will post william's link or Polyakov's research on Arctic temperatures/ice reversing?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 21, 2010 18:54:30 GMT
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/323/5913/458aThis is interesting.
2008 FALL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION: Galloping Glaciers of Greenland Have Reined Themselves In by Richard A. Kerr Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice's Armageddon has come to an end.
“It has come to an end,” (my comment ice surge from Greenland Ice Sheet) Murray said during a session at the meeting. "There seems to have been a synchronous switch-off " of the speed-up, she said. Based on the shape and appearance of the 14 largest outlet glaciers in southeast Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000 nearly everywhere. “There's a pattern of speeding up to maximum velocity and then slowing down since 2005," Murray reported. “It's amazing; they sped up and slowed down together. They're not in runaway acceleration.”
Glacial modeler Faezeh Nick of Durham University in the UK and her colleagues found similar behavior when they modeled the flow of Helheim Glacier. In their model, as they report recently in Nature Geoscience, Helheim's flow is extremely sensitive to disturbances at its margin but can quickly adjust. “Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are transient,” the group writes, “and should not be extrapolated into the future.” [/i][/quote] So its almost all been natural variation! Akasofu proves right again you need to start understanding better the natural elements of change before rushing off and attributing them to AGW. Steve are you ready yet to get the Akasofu vaccination against mind polio?
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Aug 21, 2010 20:12:30 GMT
The melting records we have on Greenland's ice sheet are anything but satisfactory. The ice cores tell us very little about rates of expansion or rates of shrinkage, other than the fact that they seem to give a continuous record as far as they go back. An obvious indication that there has not been a major melt in at least that period of time.
On the other hand, we do have Eric the Red's somewhat amusing comments on that earthly paradise he found. Eric and others sold Greenland with all the fervor of a 1920's Florida lot peddler - and with about the same level of honesty. If you believe everything you can impute from that record, there's a lot more ice now than then.
Subtracting the usual 90 percent for puffery - the ice is probably a bit thicker now than then. But what we have leaves much room for either a sane discussion over coffee - or an insane argument on forums like these.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Aug 22, 2010 3:59:33 GMT
On the other hand, we do have Eric the Red's somewhat amusing comments on that earthly paradise he found. Eric and others sold Greenland with all the fervor of a 1920's Florida lot peddler - and with about the same level of honesty. If you believe everything you can impute from that record, there's a lot more ice now than then. Subtracting the usual 90 percent for puffery - the ice is probably a bit thicker now than then. But what we have leaves much room for either a sane discussion over coffee - or an insane argument on forums like these. I see that you have as much faith in Eric the Red's statements as I have in the conclusions Mann and Briffa reached after examing the entrails of a few dead Russian trees. In addition to Eric the Red's words, there are numerous civil/church records of the Greenland colonies. Plus which, there are various archeological digs that provide physical evidence. There's an interesting article at the U of Alberta website about a major archeological dig. See www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/expressnews_template/article.cfm?id=776and also Birning off birch (yes! trees!) in ice-covered Greenland? The above link is a short summary. A 200-page thesis submitted as part of a Masters in Anthropology is available at www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22551.pdf It goes into great detail about the archeological dig at GUS. The Greenland settlements are an "inconvenient fact" for warm-mongers. For anyone who wishes to convince me that today is as warm as or warmer than the MWP (Medieval Warm Period), your mission, should you accept it, is... - Go to any place on mainland Greenland
- Find some birch brush, and burn it off to form a meadow
- Set up a successful mixed farming (wheat, oats, sheep, and goats) settlement...
- ...supporting 5,000 people...
- ...USING 11th-to-15th CENTURY TECHNOLOGY AND GRAINS
If you can successfully do so, I'll be convinced.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 22, 2010 4:47:11 GMT
your mission, should you accept it, is... - Go to any place on mainland Greenland
- Find some birch brush, and burn it off to form a meadow
- Set up a successful mixed farming (wheat, oats, sheep, and goats) settlement...
- ...supporting 5,000 people...
- ...USING 11th-to-15th CENTURY TECHNOLOGY AND GRAINS
If you can successfully do so, I'll be convinced. Even if it were as warm someone would be hard pressed to find 5,000 people with enough grit to make it successful.
|
|
|
Post by greenlandexile on Aug 22, 2010 6:18:43 GMT
On the other hand, we do have Eric the Red's somewhat amusing comments on that earthly paradise he found. Eric and others sold Greenland with all the fervor of a 1920's Florida lot peddler - and with about the same level of honesty. If you believe everything you can impute from that record, there's a lot more ice now than then. Stranger I'm pretty sure his name was Erik with a K. I named my son after him (well kinda) The archaeological records do show that the Greenland settlers early on, subsisted mainly on farming. Then later when it started to get colder, crops failed and they lived on fish. At that same time the Columbia Glacier did not exist. So much for the medieval optimum being a local event.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Aug 22, 2010 7:51:00 GMT
Based on temperature record from Greenland, it was losing as much ice in 1940s. The shift in 2005, cited in the article above, is tied to switch in AMO. We are going downhill for next 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Aug 22, 2010 11:02:09 GMT
The question is: How long has Greenland been loosing ice mass? Is the current loss anything out of the ordinary for the past 8,000 years? Nobody really knows. But what is known, is that it can get really bad (cold) really fast. We have only been studying this area in detail for the last 50-60 years, not nearly enough time. All we have are folk tales from the Inuits (not really scientific proof is it).
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 22, 2010 12:29:24 GMT
your mission, should you accept it, is... - Go to any place on mainland Greenland
- Find some birch brush, and burn it off to form a meadow
- Set up a successful mixed farming (wheat, oats, sheep, and goats) settlement...
- ...supporting 5,000 people...
- ...USING 11th-to-15th CENTURY TECHNOLOGY AND GRAINS
If you can successfully do so, I'll be convinced. Even if it were as warm someone would be hard pressed to find 5,000 people with enough grit to make it successful. You will be told - "OK it might have been warm there; but that doesn't make the MWP _global_ " This comes from the same people who believe without any question the global temperatures 'indicated' from the tree rings of a single tree in a single Siberian peninsula.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 22, 2010 17:04:16 GMT
Based on temperature record from Greenland, it was losing as much ice in 1940s. The shift in 2005, cited in the article above, is tied to switch in AMO. We are going downhill for next 30 years. Gee Greenland's temperatures like the US have been flat since the 1940's. Whats up with that!! Where is the arctic amplification?
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Aug 23, 2010 3:39:23 GMT
I'm pretty sure his name was Erik with a K. I named my son after him (well kinda). That depends on the language/alphabet it's written in. Latin doesn't have a "K". The letter "C" has the "K" sound and "S" has the "S" sound (Trivia... "Caeser" was pronounced in Latin almost exactly like we pronounce "Kaiser"). Greek-descended alphabets (including Cyrillic/Slavic) had "C" sounding like "S" in English, and a regular "K". There was no separate "S". Modern English has adopted from languages all over the world, so we get a mish-mash of pronunciation rules. E.g. "accident" is pronounced like "aksident".
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Aug 23, 2010 13:07:47 GMT
Greenland was warm enough to support *Birch*? lol. lolololololololol. Please, true believers- keep up the good work. lolololol
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Aug 23, 2010 13:36:54 GMT
No trees on Easter island now either......horrid what changes land hungry humans can drive.
|
|