PDA

View Full Version : Glaciers in Chile 'melt at fastest rate in 350 years



WX
04-04-2011, 08:20 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12950246


Melting mountain glaciers are making sea levels rise faster now than at any time in the last 350 years, according to new research.
Universities at Aberystwyth, Exeter and Stockholm looked at longer timescales than usual for their study.
They mapped changes in 270 of the largest glaciers between Chile and Argentina since the "Little Ice Age".
Studies showed glaciers have lost volume on average "10 to 100 times faster" in the last 30 years.
The rapid melt rate is linked to their contribution to global sea level.
The new research was published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday.

Phillip Allen
04-04-2011, 08:20 PM
how much is 350 years in geologic terms?

WX
04-04-2011, 08:33 PM
how much is 350 years in geologic terms?
350 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10660130

The Bigfella
04-04-2011, 09:07 PM
From wiki



The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions will have potential impact on water supplies. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and subtropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative evidence for the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century


Oh no.... the climate changed.

Excuse me for appearing cynical, but isn't the damn climate always changing? The very fact that we're coming out of the Little Ice age sort of suggests that glaciers might just melt, doesn't it?

"We" skated on the canals during the Little Ice Age, now we can swim in them. Mother Nature at work. If we stuff up the climate by our activities, Mother Nature will fix the problem.

BrianW
04-04-2011, 09:40 PM
Glacier Bay Alaska...


In 1794, Joseph Whidbey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Whidbey), master of the Discovery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Discovery_%281789%29) during George Vancouver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Vancouver)'s 1791-95 expedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Expedition), reported that his exploration of this part of the coast was blocked by a wall of 2 miles (3.2 km) width and 1,200 metres (3,900 ft)) thick.

Today...


Glacier Bay, the body of water, covers an area 1,375 square miles (3,560 km2) of glaciers and accounts for 27% of the Park area

That last part is confusing, but it's safe to say it's a huge "bay" that wasn't there in 1794. For some reason, a couple hundred years before man-made global warming, glaciers melted, and melted a lot.

Paul Girouard
04-04-2011, 10:01 PM
Glacier Bay Alaska...


In 1794, Joseph Whidbey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Whidbey), master of the Discovery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Discovery_%281789%29) during George Vancouver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Vancouver)'s 1791-95 expedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Expedition), reported that his exploration of this part of the coast was blocked by a wall of 2 miles (3.2 km) width and 1,200 metres (3,900 ft)) thick.



That last part is confusing, but it's safe to say it's a huge "bay" that wasn't there in 1794. For some reason, a couple hundred years before man-made global warming, glaciers melted, and melted a lot.



They where deceived by Deception Pass back in the day as well. Well for a while , Capt. Vancouver was anyway, so he then named the Island and passage for his trusted officer Whidbey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deception_Pass_1.jpg

Those guy sure got around!

WX
04-04-2011, 10:06 PM
Glacier Bay Alaska...



Today...



That last part is confusing, but it's safe to say it's a huge "bay" that wasn't there in 1794. For some reason, a couple hundred years before man-made global warming, glaciers melted, and melted a lot.
CO2 levels started to climb steeply around1852. It was around this time advances in steam power efficiency really kicked in.

PeterSibley
04-04-2011, 10:13 PM
Glacier Bay Alaska...



Today...



That last part is confusing, but it's safe to say it's a huge "bay" that wasn't there in 1794. For some reason, a couple hundred years before man-made global warming, glaciers melted, and melted a lot.

Um no .What gives you the impression that the vast majority of CO2 entering the atmosphere over the last 200 years was from the industrial revolution ? The majority very likely came via the plow and the axe ....releasing soil carbon and falling forests in the New World and Australia / NZ well before the first car ran on a road .

The Bigfella
04-04-2011, 10:17 PM
CO2 levels started to climb steeply around1852. It was around this time advances in steam power efficiency really kicked in.

Would you like to buy the Opera House off me Gary? Cheap.

Have a read of this one...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

Apparently, CO2 levels were over 400ppm in the 1820's... but the IPCC rejected that.... and most of the other measurements that are accurate and repeatable....




The close relationship between temperature change and CO2 level exhibited by these results is consistent with a cause-effect relationship, but does not of itself indicate which
of the two parameters is the cause and which the effect. The greenhouse hypothesis of IPCC argues for CO2 being the cause (through radiative feedback) of the temperature
rise. My results are equally if not more consistent with temperature being the forcing that controls the level of CO2 in the atmospheric system. In support of this causality, ice-core
data consistently shows that over climatic time scales, changes in temperature precede their parallel changes in carbon dioxide by several hundred to more than a thousand years

WX
04-04-2011, 10:21 PM
It's not so much that the glaciers are melting, that has been going on since the last ice age. it's the speed at which they are melting and when the increase started that is the important detail here. It also coincides with the upward spike in CO2.

PeterSibley
04-04-2011, 10:29 PM
Would you like to buy the Opera House off me Gary? Cheap.

Have a read of this one...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

Apparently, CO2 levels were over 400ppm in the 1820's... but the IPCC rejected that.... and most of the other measurements that are accurate and repeatable....





Would you mind giving page and paragraph for the 400ppm .I'm reading it right now and the number in front of me is 285ppm in 1850.

The Bigfella
04-04-2011, 10:34 PM
Would you mind giving page and paragraph for the 400ppm .I'm reading it right now and the number in front of me is 285ppm in 1850.

any of the graphs from p272 on

The Bigfella
04-04-2011, 10:35 PM
It's not so much that the glaciers are melting, that has been going on since the last ice age. it's the speed at which they are melting and when the increase started that is the important detail here. It also coincides with the upward spike in CO2.

So, what came first, the melting or the CO2?

WX
04-04-2011, 10:36 PM
Would you like to buy the Opera House off me Gary? Cheap.

Have a read of this one...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

Apparently, CO2 levels were over 400ppm in the 1820's... but the IPCC rejected that.... and most of the other measurements that are accurate and repeatable....






“The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from close to 280 parts
per million (ppm) in 1800, at first slowly and then progressively faster to a value
of 367 ppm in 1999, echoing the increasing pace of global agricultural and industrial
development.


Take a closer look at the graph on page 260, the CO2 levels start to rise steeply around 1850. Most of the graphs are missing the last 40-50+ years of data. I hope you aren't basing your present work on this.

The Bigfella
04-04-2011, 10:38 PM
Take a closer look at the graph on page 260, the CO2 levels start to rise steeply around 1850. Most of the graphs are missing the last 40-50+ years of data. I hope you aren't basing your present work on this.

I think you might want to read it first Gary. That's the IPCC's bullsh!t in that graph.

Keep at it.




Between 1800 and 1961, more than 380 technical papers that were published on air gas analysis contained data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Callendar [16, 20, 24]
Keeling and the IPCC did not provide a thorough evaluation of these papers and the standard chemical methods that they deployed. Rather, they discredited these techniques
and data, and rejected most as faulty or highly inaccurate [20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27]. Though they acknowledge the concept of an ‘unpolluted background level’ for
CO2, these authors only examined about 10% of the available literature, asserting from that that only 1% of all previous data could be viewed as accurate (Müntz [28, 29, 30],
Reiset [31], Buch [32]).

The Bigfella
04-04-2011, 11:19 PM
btw... it seems the standard scientific analysis method was applied to E.G. Beck.... attack the (now deceased) individual. I'd be interested to see some more work in the area though.

varadero
04-05-2011, 01:15 AM
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/1212569190_550x338__550x338.jpg

It could also have somthing to do with the Sun. This graph illustrates irradience. note the levels from 1960 onwards, also the little ice age in the 1600s.

PeterSibley
04-05-2011, 02:44 AM
I think you might want to read it first Gary. That's the IPCC's bullsh!t in that graph.

Keep at it.





btw... it seems the standard scientific analysis method was applied to the IPPC by Ian .Cherry picking to find something he agrees with .

The Bigfella
04-05-2011, 03:04 AM
btw... it seems the standard scientific analysis method was applied to the IPPC by Ian .Cherry picking to find something he agrees with .

Actually, no cherrypicking... it happened to be the first one I googled up.

Seriously, what did you think of Beck's article. He seems to make an interesting point. The IPCC seems to have ignored data that showed massive variations in CO2 levels.

PeterSibley
04-05-2011, 03:31 AM
If that was a serious enquiry ,I'd say the IPPC would prefer to use data all from on observational method ,analyzed using the same equipment in the same lab.Modern ice core analysis seems seems a good example .All the samples from one site using one methodology .It seems preferable to using old chemical analysis and trying to find a common point .

The Bigfella
04-05-2011, 03:43 AM
If that was a serious enquiry ,I'd say the IPPC would prefer to use data all from on observational method ,analyzed using the same equipment in the same lab.Modern ice core analysis seems seems a good example .All the samples from one site using one methodology .It seems preferable to using old chemical analysis and trying to find a common point .

Of course they would. I'd rather it too.

Just get them to drag out that satellite data from 1812.

As Beck pointed out though.... they decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because it would seem, the data that did exist doesn't suit their plans.

There's known error rates for the data - which was gathered using known techniques that can be repeated. Why doesn't the IPCC want to use it? Because it shows something different to what they want to show.

Hmmm - great science that, eh?

PeterSibley
04-05-2011, 04:31 AM
I don't think you understand the reason for a standardised methodology............. but suit yourself .

The Bigfella
04-05-2011, 05:00 AM
Yes, I understand the reason for a standardised methodology... and if you want to apply one to this, you'd be using the methodology from 1812, wouldn't you? That way you get a consistent data series... rather than one that is based on cherrypicked data and new methods.

skuthorp
04-05-2011, 05:48 AM
Accvording to the regular ebb and flow an ice age should have been coming on about 7000 years ago, agriculture began about 10,000 years ago. Is there a link?

PeterSibley
04-05-2011, 05:50 AM
You get a standardised data set from one ice core Ian .

skuthorp
04-05-2011, 05:52 AM
Evidently man has altered 75% of the worlds ice free landmass.

varadero
04-05-2011, 08:25 AM
Talk about cherry picking, this is the "Hide the decline" scandal where tree ring proxies were grafted on to temperature records to show exactly what was required. The subsequent drop of the proxy temps after 1960s were deleted as they could not explain them. It now apears that the record prior to 1550 was also deleted.




The summary of the story is very simple. The Briffa-Osborn 1999 reconstruction of the climate depended on a variable called "yrmxd" in a computer code. You can set it to any year and the program will cover up the whole history of your proxies before the year "yrmxd". The variable was set to 1550 instead of the correct 1402 and the result looked like this:



https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/TY45qibRPFI/AAAAAAAAEeA/x_z1iK0YtlA/briffa99-science_notrick2.png

Look at the brightly shining pink lines - because both of these segments have been erased in the final paper. Those guys have censored the "distracting" decline of the temperature obtained from the trees after 1960 (they have masked the so-called "divergence problem"): this is the original "hide the decline" scandal

Phillip Allen
04-05-2011, 08:33 AM
HOW COME IAN DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS!!! Ian would not leave it out cause he doesn't cherry-pick

The Bigfella
04-05-2011, 08:38 AM
HOW COME IAN DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS!!! Ian would not leave it out cause he doesn't cherry-pick

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Vietnam2/phnom2.jpg

Phillip Allen
04-05-2011, 08:44 AM
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Vietnam2/phnom2.jpg

Who dat? You without your magic cape? (I think I see it behind you :) )

wardd
04-05-2011, 08:48 AM
it's not only the change but the rate of change that life can't adapt to.

the artic sea ice is melting and and causing trouble with polar bear survival as one example

we are in one of the great species die offs in earths history

and co2 can be analyzed to tell if it's natural or anthropogenic in origin

varadero
04-05-2011, 09:06 AM
The Arctic sea ice melts every Spring, it freezes again every Winter. Extent depends on wind patterns and strengths.
The Polar Bear population is growing year on year.
CO2 increases and temperature increases are beneficial for both flora and fauna.
Glaciers are advancing in many parts of the world, they have been advancing and retreating and will continue to do so. Kilimanjaro is regaining its glaciers and snow cap now.

wardd
04-05-2011, 09:19 AM
The Arctic sea ice melts every Spring, it freezes again every Winter. Extent depends on wind patterns and strengths.
The Polar Bear population is growing year on year.
CO2 increases and temperature increases are beneficial for both flora and fauna.
Glaciers are advancing in many parts of the world, they have been advancing and retreating and will continue to do so. Kilimanjaro is regaining its glaciers and snow cap now.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictio ns.html


Thompson said that despite the recalibration of their prediction, the larger issue has to remain in sight.
“The real message here is that these ice fields will disappear. Whether it is in 10 years or 30 years is not the issue. The fact they will disappear within a few decades, as will many glaciers throughout the tropics, is the real concern,” he said.
“The opinions of global warming doubters will change on a dime depending on whether it is cold winter or a hot summer. The only opinion that matters is nature’s. Nature has a way of humbling us all. It still remains to be seen just who that will be” in the end, Thompson said.

WX
04-05-2011, 03:56 PM
The Arctic sea ice melts every Spring, it freezes again every Winter. Extent depends on wind patterns and strengths.
The Polar Bear population is growing year on year.
CO2 increases and temperature increases are beneficial for both flora and fauna.
Glaciers are advancing in many parts of the world, they have been advancing and retreating and will continue to do so. Kilimanjaro is regaining its glaciers and snow cap now.
Dream on....oooo look, flying bacon.