PDA

View Full Version : Largest glacier calving ever filmed



WX
07-24-2013, 03:42 PM
An area the size of Manhattan Island.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

wardd
07-24-2013, 03:51 PM
puts the lie to global warming

skuthorp
07-24-2013, 04:00 PM
Not for some, but then that doesn't really matter at this late stage does it. A bit late to worry, a bit late to adapt too probably.
But then with the end of antibiotics in sight and predictions of drastic earth movements it'll just be another box ticked.
I am minded of the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times", and they are definitely interesting!

WX
07-24-2013, 04:04 PM
puts the lie to global warming

Joke, right?

obscured by clouds
07-24-2013, 04:47 PM
an occasion when the word "awesome" is entirely apt

LeeG
07-24-2013, 05:16 PM
Rummmmble

John Smith
07-24-2013, 05:29 PM
thanks to the internet I see many things I never could have imagined.

The Bigfella
07-24-2013, 05:41 PM
An area the size of Manhattan Island.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Wow, but what he says btw, is that it is equivalent to an area the size of the lower tip of Manhattan Island

wardd
07-24-2013, 05:44 PM
Joke, right?

absolutely not, all that ice will drift south and cool the world down

WX
07-24-2013, 05:58 PM
Wow, but what he says btw, is that it is equivalent to an area the size of the lower tip of Manhattan Island
That's right be pedantic.:)

Chip-skiff
07-24-2013, 06:44 PM
puts the lie to global warming

Two questions:

Did you watch the video clip, with the information on the increasing rate of recession?

Could you briefly go through the thought process leading to your conclusion?

I'm not trying to start an argument and I won't contest what you say. But I'm really curious.

WX
07-24-2013, 07:02 PM
absolutely not, all that ice will drift south and cool the world down

When all the ice is gone, then what?

Duncan Gibbs
07-24-2013, 07:04 PM
It's stunning and horrific all at once. The amount of retreat is truly appalling.

And I think Wardd has his tongue bolted to his cheek.

WX
07-24-2013, 07:23 PM
It's stunning and horrific all at once. The amount of retreat is truly appalling.

And I think Wardd has his tongue bolted to his cheek.
Yeah well...I have to agree.:)

The Bigfella
07-24-2013, 07:29 PM
That's right be pedantic.:)

Yep, really pedantic... see that lower tip... that little bit down near the bottom. That's what he was talking about... not the whole orange lot, that you claimed it as.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/New_York_City_location_Manhattan.svg/500px-New_York_City_location_Manhattan.svg.png

Duncan Gibbs
07-24-2013, 07:48 PM
"Little bit" is hardly the description I'd use.

The narrator also said the parts that broke off were also two to three time the height of the Manhattan skyline. Assuming the ice density is also twice that of all the building mass aggregated (if not more), as well as the fact Manhattan is not that high above sea level we could assume the actual mass that calved is approximate to that of the entire island above sea level, buildings included.

We could split infinitives all day long Ian, but it's really an exercise in competitive pissing and not particularly fruitful.

As Gary said...

The Bigfella
07-24-2013, 08:03 PM
"Little bit" is hardly the description I'd use.

The narrator also said the parts that broke off were also two to three time the height of the Manhattan skyline. Assuming the ice density is also twice that of all the building mass aggregated (if not more), as well as the fact Manhattan is not that high above sea level we could assume the actual mass that calved is approximate to that of the entire island above sea level, buildings included.

We could split infinitives all day long Ian, but it's really an exercise in competitive pissing and not particularly fruitful.

As Gary said...

Dunc... the day I defer to you on qualitative issues will be a funny one.

Manhattan Island District 1 has an area of 1.5 square miles

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/neigh_info/mn01_info.shtml

Manhattan Island has a land area of 23 square miles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan

If you want to falsify things and claim that comparing 1.5 to 23 is a competitive pissing exercise, then good luck... keep pissing.... you can clearly piss over 15 times higher than me, so keep it happening.

WX
07-24-2013, 08:10 PM
Okay Ian you are right and I made a mistake...happy, or do you want to argue some more?

The Bigfella
07-24-2013, 08:10 PM
Meanwhile... this is the detail from the video

On May 28, 2008, Adam LeWinter and Director Jeff Orlowski filmed a historic breakup at the Ilulissat Glacier in Western Greenland. The calving event lasted for 75 minutes and the glacier retreated a full mile across a calving face three miles wide. The height of the ice is about 3,000 feet, 300-400 feet above water and the rest below water.

There's a good write-up on it in wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Glacier

The Bigfella
07-24-2013, 08:12 PM
Okay Ian you are right and I made a mistake...happy, or do you want to argue some more?

No big deal... I simply pointed out that the size of it was only 1/15th what you said. You want to claim that pointing that out is pedantic and Dunc seems to want to justify the erroneous claim.

Its neither pedantic, nor is the alternative "justification" sensible.

WX
07-24-2013, 08:36 PM
Good, I'm glad we've got that settled then.:)

Willin'
07-24-2013, 08:57 PM
Anybody hear if that was a northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere phenom? Just wondering.

The Bigfella
07-24-2013, 09:03 PM
Anybody hear if that was a northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere phenom? Just wondering.

It was five years ago, Greenland. This place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Glacier

LeeG
07-24-2013, 09:07 PM
Meanwhile... this is the detail from the video

On May 28, 2008, Adam LeWinter and Director Jeff Orlowski filmed a historic breakup at the Ilulissat Glacier in Western Greenland. The calving event lasted for 75 minutes and the glacier retreated a full mile across a calving face three miles wide. The height of the ice is about 3,000 feet, 300-400 feet above water and the rest below water.

There's a good write-up on it in wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Glacier


Wow:
There is evidence that people have inhabited the area around the glacier for up to 4000 years. The recently abandoned settlement of Sermermiut (Which means 'place of the glacier people') lies just to the north of the glacier, much nearer than Ilulissat.[9][10]

skipper68
07-24-2013, 10:30 PM
It is looking for the New Titanic.
We need Keith Wilson to do a graph.
He is reasonable.
Do it?
Thanks. :)

Duncan Gibbs
07-24-2013, 11:01 PM
Dunc... the day I defer to you on qualitative issues will be a funny one.

That's a really nice thing to say to someone you actually know off this board and is supposed to be a friend.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about "quality" but quantity... Y'know... MASS!



The height of the ice is about 3,000 feet, 300-400 feet above water and the rest below water.

There's a good write-up on it in wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Glacier


So, if District 1 is 1.5 miles square (3.885km2) and greater Manhattan is 23 miles square (59.57km2) and we can assume that the average height of the land is approximately 10m ASL and the aggregated building mass of the island would add another 10 metres of height, and that gives us a mass of 1.19 cubic km. Now if the total area of the calving is 3.885km2 and it's height is 900m then the volume is 3.49 cubic km. Even if we allowed double the land height and building mass for Manhattan it still falls short of the quantity of ice calved.

It's a lot of ice and a known land mass provides several types comparisons, from area to volume.

skipper68
07-24-2013, 11:08 PM
Who will fix this?
Muha ha hja,,,,,,,
Superman is busy.
The world is KOOKOOO.
We need to adapt.

Gerarddm
07-24-2013, 11:10 PM
Whatever, it's still bloody impressive.

skipper68
07-24-2013, 11:44 PM
I am 300 and something FT. above. I buy Raman noodles. LOL
It's all good. :)
We will work, to some extant.
HUMANITY IS IMPORTANT TO SOME OF US.

The Bigfella
07-25-2013, 02:05 AM
That's a really nice thing to say to someone you actually know off this board and is supposed to be a friend.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about "quality" but quantity... Y'know... MASS!



So, if District 1 is 1.5 miles square (3.885km2) and greater Manhattan is 23 miles square (59.57km2) and we can assume that the average height of the land is approximately 10m ASL and the aggregated building mass of the island would add another 10 metres of height, and that gives us a mass of 1.19 cubic km. Now if the total area of the calving is 3.885km2 and it's height is 900m then the volume is 3.49 cubic km. Even if we allowed double the land height and building mass for Manhattan it still falls short of the quantity of ice calved.

It's a lot of ice and a known land mass provides several types comparisons, from area to volume.


It was you that took the discussion into the realms of "competitive pissing", not me... and yeah, I meant to say quantitative.

So shoot me. Then I'd still buy you a beer.

The discussion wasn't about mass btw, it was about surface area... but you can talk mass if you want. I'll happily dispute your assumptions for the calculation of the mass of the island if you want, but its hardly relevant

Yes, its an impressive drop of ice. This bit in wiki is interesting: Jakobshavn Isbrae, retreated 30 km from 1850–1964, followed by a stationary front for 35 years.

This glacier, like glaciers around the world, has been subject to advances and retreats. The following comes from

http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr4/nr4_p85-88-uk.htm


Prehistoric variations of Sermeq Kujalleq
At the beginning of postglacial time (c. 9500 B.P.) the front
of Sermeq Kujalleq was situated at the mouth of the fjord,
about 50 km west of the front position shown in Fig. 1, rest-
ing on a bank near Ilulissat at depths of 200*300 m below
present sea level (Weidick 1994). Subsequently, the ice mar-
gin retreated some 65*70 km, and at the end of the climatic
optimum c. 5000 years ago the glacier front was located
about 20 km east of the ice margin position of 1964 (Weidick
et al. 1990, fig. 4).
The following neoglacial readvance culminated during the
Little Ice Age (A.D. 1500*1900), with the maximum posi-
tion of the glacier front in 1851 (Fig. 3; cf. Bauer 1968).


Since the postglacial climatic optimum the ice margin is pre-
sumed to have advanced in pulses, such as it has been docu-
mented for the ice margin 40 km north of Sermeq Kujalleq
where the response of the ice-sheet margin has been calcu-
lated for the last 1400 years (Reeh 1983). There may have
been two periods of advance: at A.D. 700*800 and during
the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1500*1900).

WX
07-25-2013, 03:57 PM
Oh, we're back to it's just normal glacier activity and nothing to do with global warming which by the way has nothing to do with human activity.

isla
07-25-2013, 04:40 PM
Recent research suggests that the rapid ice melt could potentially release billions of tons of trapped methane, which would accelerate climate change. The UK Independent newspaper has an interesting article..http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/methane-meltdown-the-arctic-timebomb-that-could-cost-us-60trn-8730408.html?origin=internalSearch

The Bigfella
07-25-2013, 04:49 PM
Oh, we're back to it's just normal glacier activity and nothing to do with global warming which by the way has nothing to do with human activity.

Are you saying that the period just gone, 1500-1900, the Little Ice Age, isn't relevant to the discussion?

The scientific community know that the face of the glacier was 20 km further back in relatively recent times.

John of Phoenix
07-25-2013, 04:57 PM
I took this picture of Greenland in July, 2010. I don't have anything from previous years, but I was surprised at the dramatic difference.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-4DimoPn48_g/TERdsMv6LgI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/57OvFzGPAMA/w526-h704-no/2010-07-15+07.33.59.jpg

Chip-skiff
07-25-2013, 06:45 PM
I took this picture of Greenland in July, 2010. I don't have anything from previous years, but I was surprised at the dramatic difference.

In late July last year, the entire Greenland Ice Cap reached thawing temps, which hasn't happened for about a century. The west coast had epic floods—

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-QDhUSrRGUg8/URRQ5aJYRqI/AAAAAAAADhc/TW-PA3BmXAk/s800/g-land3.jpg

WX
07-25-2013, 11:24 PM
Are you saying that the period just gone, 1500-1900, the Little Ice Age, isn't relevant to the discussion?

The scientific community know that the face of the glacier was 20 km further back in relatively recent times.
Proof?
What is happening is happening at a faster rate than predicted and it's speeding up.

skuthorp
07-25-2013, 11:29 PM
Try googling 'permafrost melt', amongst the many pages this is the most recent.
The accelerating melt of permafrost, a startling feature of the Arctic under climate change, has been pinpointed for the first time in Antarctica.
Ground previously frozen over a geological time scale in one of the McMurdo Dry Valleys is said to be melting at a rate now running at about 10 times the historical average.
American researcher Joseph Levy said the discovery in an area that represented Antarctic permafrost's "soft underbelly" foreshadowed bigger impacts ahead under climate change.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/melting-of-antarctic-permafrost-speeds-up-20130725-2qmrd.html#ixzz2a7eyQmMs

The Bigfella
07-25-2013, 11:37 PM
Proof?
What is happening is happening at a faster rate than predicted and it's speeding up.

Well I did cite this mob Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin


http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr4/nr4_p85-88-uk.htm


... and they were the site that the material came from.


I'll post it again. Its in here:


Prehistoric variations of Sermeq Kujalleq
At the beginning of postglacial time (c. 9500 B.P.) the front of Sermeq Kujalleq was situated at the mouth of the fjord, about 50 km west of the front position shown in Fig. 1, resting on a bank near Ilulissat at depths of 200*300 m below present sea level (Weidick 1994). Subsequently, the ice margin retreated some 65*70 km, and at the end of the climatic optimum c. 5000 years ago the glacier front was located about 20 km east of the ice margin position of 1964 (Weidick et al. 1990, fig. 4).

The following neoglacial readvance culminated during the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1500*1900), with the maximum position of the glacier front in 1851 (Fig. 3; cf. Bauer 1968).

Since the postglacial climatic optimum the ice margin is pre- sumed to have advanced in pulses, such as it has been documented for the ice margin 40 km north of Sermeq Kujalleq where the response of the ice-sheet margin has been calculated for the last 1400 years (Reeh 1983). There may have been two periods of advance: at A.D. 700*800 and during the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1500*1900).

I'll take their word for it over the newspaper reports. You might have noticed something Chippy posted too. He's been working up there...


In late July last year, the entire Greenland Ice Cap reached thawing temps, which hasn't happened for about a century....

Whazzat you say? Thawing temps a century ago. Whoa, that doesn't fit the model.

WX
07-26-2013, 02:08 AM
CO2 levels started to rise around 1852. This is when steam power really took off with improvements to coal fired steam engines.

The Bigfella
07-26-2013, 02:16 AM
CO2 levels started to rise around 1852. This is when steam power really took off with improvements to coal fired steam engines.

Ahem...

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7821ba9970b-pi

varadero
07-26-2013, 02:17 AM
Recent research suggests that the rapid ice melt could potentially release billions of tons of trapped methane, which would accelerate climate change. The UK Independent newspaper has an interesting article..http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/methane-meltdown-the-arctic-timebomb-that-could-cost-us-60trn-8730408.html?origin=internalSearch

Gavin on why the Arctic methane alarm is implausible (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/gavin-on-why-the-arctic-methane-alarm-is-implausible/)Posted on July 25, 2013 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/gavin-on-why-the-arctic-methane-alarm-is-implausible/) by Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsupwiththat/)
Guest Essay by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA GISS
Yesterday, I carried this story: An alarmist prediction so bad, even Gavin Schmidt thinks it is implausible (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/24/an-alarmist-prediction-so-bad-even-gavin-schmidt-thinks-it-is-implausible/)
Today, on Twitter, Karel Haverkorn asked why. To his credit, Dr. Schmidt replied (https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin) on Twitter in multiple tweets with an essay of bullet points. This marks the first time Dr. Schmidt publishes on WUWT, as well as the first essay here ever composed on Twitter.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/gavin_ch4_tweet.png?w=640 (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/gavin_ch4_tweet.png)
I’ve collated his responses below.
Also the PETM (55 My) and Eocene small events. But no evidence under near-current temps. Outside of quaternary range of arctic temps, many fewer constraints…. Pliocene CH4 may well have been higher (but no direct evidence), multiple sources though…
Some more context on Arctic methane release story to follow:
1) Methane is an important part of the anthropogenic radiative forcing over 20thC. Human caused increase from 0.7ppm to 1.8ppm
2) Methane emissions have a direct GHG effect, and they effect atmospheric chemistry and strat water vapour which have additional impacts
3) Direct forcing from anthropogenic methane ~0.5 W/m2, indirect effects add ~0.4 W/m2. (For ref: CO2 forcing is ~1.8W/m2)
4) natural feedbacks involving methane likely to be important in future – via wetland response to T/rain chng, atmos chem &, yes, arctic src
5) monitoring and analysis of atmos conc of CH4 is very important. However, despite dramatic Arctic warming and summer sea ice loss ….. > …. In recent decades, little change has been seen in atmos concentrations at high latitudes.
6) There are large stores of carbon in the Arctic, some stored as hydrates, some potentially convertible to CH4 by anaerobic resporation
7) there’s evidence in deep time records of large, rapid exogenous inputs of carbon into climate system; leading theory relates this to CH4
8) it is therefore not silly or alarmist to think about the possibilities, thresholds and impacts for these kinds of events
9) in more recent past, there have been a number if times when Arctic (not necessarily globe) has been significantly warmer than today.
10) Most recently, Early Holocene, which had significantly less summer sea ice than even 2012. Earlier, Eemian 125kyrs ago was sig warmer
11) At neither of these times is there any evidence for CH4 emissions or concentrations in excess of base pre-industrial conditions.
12) this means that we are not currently near a threshold for dramatic CH4 releases. (Though we may get there)
13) Much of the concern re dramatic changes in Arctic methane come from one off surveys and poorly calibrated remote sensing
16) But we should not take what-if sensitivity experiments as predictions.

###

hokiefan
07-26-2013, 02:40 AM
CO2 levels started to rise around 1852. This is when steam power really took off with improvements to coal fired steam engines.

Jeebuz... You guys should know better than to argue with Ian. He knows more than God, and if you don't believe that just ask him.

The Bigfella
07-26-2013, 02:52 AM
Jeebuz... You guys should know better than to argue with Ian. He knows more than God, and if you don't believe that just ask him.

Oh look... another vapid post from Hokes.

Wazzup.... get a knockback from your boot again?

Andev
07-26-2013, 04:01 AM
Oh look... another vapid post from Hokes.

Wazzup.... get a knockback from your boot again?

This adds so much to the thread.

The biggest unknown is just how much of the methane stored in the High arctic will be released as the process of permafrost melt continues to expand.

varadero
07-26-2013, 04:47 AM
This adds so much to the thread.

The biggest unknown is just how much of the methane stored in the High arctic will be released as the process of permafrost melt continues to expand.

Look at post 41, by Warmist Gavin Schmidt. "implausable"
Or Judith Curry. "impossible" http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/25/arctic-time-bomb/

Andev
07-26-2013, 06:44 AM
Look at post 41, by Warmist Gavin Schmidt. "implausable"
Or Judith Curry. "impossible" http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/25/arctic-time-bomb/

He says that it's potentially a big problem and that there were major problems before but not yet. They don't know what will be the threshold. it's a bit like Russian roulette. you can keep playing denying that there's a bullet in the chamber or you can try to put the gun down before you run out of luck. I know what my preference is!!

The Bigfella
07-26-2013, 07:13 AM
He says that it's potentially a big problem and that there were major problems before but not yet. They don't know what will be the threshold. it's a bit like Russian roulette. you can keep playing denying that there's a bullet in the chamber or you can try to put the gun down before you run out of luck. I know what my preference is!!

Oh goodie, science is now a gun sport

Andev
07-26-2013, 09:48 AM
I guess the subtlety of analogy just slides on over your head even when it's as blunt as that. Oh well!

WX
07-27-2013, 04:58 AM
Russian roulette...except it's being played with an automatic.

Oyvind Snibsoer
07-28-2013, 04:51 PM
As a resident of the Arctic, I can assure you that the pace of change is indeed dramatic. On Spitsbergen, where glaciers just a very few years ago extended a kilometer or more into the sea, they have now retreated completely from the sea to solid land. Yes, glaciers have always surged and moved erratically, but what we are witnessing now is dramatic and systematic change throughout the Arctic.

Andev
07-28-2013, 05:11 PM
As a resident of the Arctic, I can assure you that the pace of change is indeed dramatic. On Spitsbergen, where glaciers just a very few years ago extended a kilometer or more into the sea, they have now retreated completely from the sea to solid land. Yes, glaciers have always surged and moved erratically, but what we are witnessing now is dramatic and systematic change throughout the Arctic.

Don't worry the "deniers" will be along shortly to tell you that you are wrong and that it's all OK! They know best!

You live in Spitsbergen! That must be pretty amazing place to live from all the pictures I've seen.

WX
07-30-2013, 12:43 AM
USA's first GW refugees.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23346370

varadero
07-30-2013, 07:23 AM
Sound more like coastal erosion refugees, by people who used to be nomadic for a reason, untill the Govt built them a "permanent base" on dodgy land. Meanwhile, the top 3 coldest recorded Arctic Summers will have occured in the last 5 years, and Antarctic sea ice is 180,000 km2 above the last record for the date, which occured in 2010.
http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2013_day_209_1981-2010.png?w=1024&h=682 (http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2013_day_209_1981-2010.png)
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Coldest-arctic-summers.png (http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Coldest-arctic-summers.png)

Oyvind Snibsoer
07-30-2013, 08:57 AM
Varadero,
thanks for posting those sea ice figures, because it gives me an excellent reason to post this very sobering article about the true state of Arctic sea ice cover. For those who can't be bothered to open the link, the article states that while winter sea ice extent may not have decreased so much, the thickness of the ice is rapidly decreasing. Multi-year ice is becoming a thing of the past and much larger areas are becoming ice free in summer.

http://barentsobserver.com/sites/barentsobserver.com/files/styles/grid_8/public/main/articles/slide1.jpg

http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2013/07/summer-sea-ice-cover-smaller-younger-thinner-02-07

WX
07-30-2013, 05:38 PM
Sound more like coastal erosion refugees, by people who used to be nomadic for a reason, untill the Govt built them a "permanent base" on dodgy land.
Maybe you should actually read the article and learn why the island is eroding so fast.

The Bigfella
07-30-2013, 06:59 PM
Maybe you should actually read the article and learn why the island is eroding so fast.

The end of the Little Ice Age?

WX
07-30-2013, 10:09 PM
The end of the Little Ice Age?

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

The Bigfella
07-30-2013, 10:32 PM
You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

What don't I wanna know?

I know that climate change is THE norm on this planet.

I know that we as a species crap in our own nest.

I know that the article you linked said that community is at risk due to erosion. They built in a silly place. Didn't they?

Just as many people on the east coast of Oz discovered in the '67 storms (and btw.... your pet glacier was stable or advancing then)

You did read that material from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin didn't you?

Remember that? 5,000 years ago, the glacier front was 20km back from where it is now and then:

"The following neoglacial readvance culminated during the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1500*1900), with the maximum position of the glacier front in 1851"

Here's a bit more from that link, but, as you say, you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

A lowering of the frontal surface may have occurred from the 1960s to the 1980s (Echelmeyer et al. 1991). Between 1993/94 and 1998/99 investigations of the glacier by laser altimetry showed Sermeq Kujalleq to be one of the few Greenland outlets showing signs of slight growth (Abdalati et al. 2001).
However, since 1997 a sudden transition to a rapid thinning has occurred, starting in the lower reaches of the glacier and spreading gradually inland. By 2001 almost the entire glacier up to elevations of 2000 m exhibited thinning (Thomas et al. 2003). Substantial changes of the glacier front were therefore
not entirely unexpected

Guess what.... the Little Ice Age is over and, surprise surprise, the glacier front is retreating again.

WX
07-30-2013, 10:39 PM
What don't I wanna know?

I know that climate change is THE norm on this planet.

I know that we as a species crap in our own nest.

I know that the article you linked said that community is at risk due to erosion. They built in a silly place. Didn't they?

Just as many people on the east coast of Oz discovered in the '67 storms (and btw.... your pet glacier was stable or advancing then)

You did read that material from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin didn't you?

Remember that? 5,000 years ago, the glacier front was 20km back from where it is now and then:

"The following neoglacial readvance culminated during the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1500*1900), with the maximum position of the glacier front in 1851"

Here's a bit more from that link, but, as you say, you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

A lowering of the frontal surface may have occurred from the 1960s to the 1980s (Echelmeyer et al. 1991). Between 1993/94 and 1998/99 investigations of the glacier by laser altimetry showed Sermeq Kujalleq to be one of the few Greenland outlets showing signs of slight growth (Abdalati et al. 2001).
However, since 1997 a sudden transition to a rapid thinning has occurred, starting in the lower reaches of the glacier and spreading gradually inland. By 2001 almost the entire glacier up to elevations of 2000 m exhibited thinning (Thomas et al. 2003). Substantial changes of the glacier front were therefore
not entirely unexpected

Guess what.... the Little Ice Age is over and, surprise surprise, the glacier front is retreating again.
It's retreating faster now. Your quote there fits in with GW.
The island community was protected from erosion by pack ice in the past, now that has retreated away from the island it's open to erosion by the sea.

The Bigfella
07-30-2013, 10:45 PM
It's retreating faster now. Your quote there fits in with GW.
The island community was protected from erosion by pack ice in the past, now that has retreated away from the island it's open to erosion by the sea.

Yes. So what does any of that prove? Nothing other than that as we come out of the Little Ice Age there will be less ice. Duhh.

WX
07-31-2013, 12:12 AM
Yes. So what does any of that prove? Nothing other than that as we come out of the Little Ice Age there will be less ice. Duhh.
I don't think it's as simplistic as that. You and I are never going to agree on the cause here.

The Bigfella
07-31-2013, 12:20 AM
I don't think it's as simplistic as that. You and I are never going to agree on the cause here.

The cause of what?

Glaciers advancing and retreating - which is what this thread is about?

WX
07-31-2013, 12:39 AM
Ian the glacier retreated 8 miles in 100 years, in the last 10 years it has retreated 9 miles. You don't consider that a significant event?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
1550 to 1850
As people love charts, if you look at this one you will see the temp has climbed well above the average of the last 2,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The Bigfella
07-31-2013, 12:52 AM
Ian the glacier retreated 8 miles in 100 years, in the last 10 years it has retreated 9 miles. You don't consider that a significant event?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
1550 to 1850
As people love charts, if you look at this one you will see the temp has climbed well above the average of the last 2,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


.... and its still got another 20 km to go to get back to where it was before it advanced between 1500 and 1851.

WX
07-31-2013, 02:19 AM
.... and its still got another 20 km to go to get back to where it was before it advanced between 1500 and 1851.

That may be so but I think the issue is the speed at which it is happening. What formerly took several hundred years is now taking tens of years. 1-2 degrees is the difference between having ice caps and glaciers and not having them. The evidence shows a marked increase in global air and sea temps and a marked rise in CO2 levels since the mid 19th century.

The Bigfella
07-31-2013, 02:22 AM
That may be so but I think the issue is the speed at which it is happening. What formerly took several hundred years is now taking tens of years. 1-2 degrees is the difference between having ice caps and glaciers and not having them. The evidence shows a marked increase in global air and sea temps and a marked rise in CO2 levels since the mid 19th century.

Tell me again how they measure those temps? What's the granularity?

pipefitter
07-31-2013, 03:28 AM
"Largest glacier calving ever filmed"

How long have they been filming calving glaciers? I don't get how this translates into the hysteria surrounding global warming. This topic's replies seems to greatly ignore the word "filmed."

PeterSibley
07-31-2013, 03:36 AM
"Largest glacier calving ever filmed"

How long have they been filming calving glaciers? I don't get how this translates into the hysteria surrounding global warming. This topic's replies seems to greatly ignore the word "filmed."

Yep, there are probably bigger ones not being filmed.

The Bigfella
07-31-2013, 03:56 AM
The world's most recent glacial period began about 110,000 years ago and ended around 12,500 years ago. The maximum extent of this glacial period was the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and it occurred around 20,000 years ago.

This might give a clue to why glaciers aren't where they used to be:

Erosional and depositional evidence indicates that glaciers once covered about 200 km of Mount Kenya and descended to the upper limit of the modern treeline. Palynological studies suggest that the mean annual temperature at 2,400 m about 18,000 years B.P. was 8 C lower than present and that major warming began 15,862+/-185 years B.P. (Coetzee, 1964).

pipefitter
07-31-2013, 03:58 AM
Yep, there are probably bigger ones not being filmed.

Imagine the luck that they just happened to be right where the largest was ever filmed too. Hopefully they will be where the next largest happens.

PeterSibley
07-31-2013, 03:59 AM
"Largest glacier calving ever filmed"

How long have they been filming calving glaciers? I don't get how this translates into the hysteria surrounding global warming. This topic's replies seems to greatly ignore the word "filmed."

The interesting / horrifying thing is the increasing rate at which they are disappearing. Far, far faster now when compared to 100 years ago.

The Bigfella
07-31-2013, 04:02 AM
The interesting / horrifying thing is the increasing rate at which they are disappearing. Far, far faster now when compared to 100 years ago.

Fancy that... its hard to imagine why, with the temperature still climbing after reaching bottom (in this cycle) 16,000 years ago, that they would retreat. 8 degrees C warmer now.

varadero
07-31-2013, 07:01 AM
Maybe you should actually read the article and learn why the island is eroding so fast.
Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University.
On July 29, 2013 the BBC’s Hardtalk journalist Stephen Sackur wrote “The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade.” He opened the story with “within a decade Kivalina is likely to be under water. Gone, forever. Remembered – if at all – as the birthplace of America’s first climate change refugees.” He then quotes a local who laments, “The US government imposed this Western lifestyle on us, gave us their burdens and now they expect us to pick everything up and move it ourselves. What kind of government does that?”
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image002_thumb4.jpg?w=459&h=239 (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0025.jpg)
Given the context, such a statement sounds like the locals were feeling abandoned by global warming. But the tone also reminded me of the complaints by many native Arctic people who were relocated by the US, Canadian and Russian governments in a 20th century battle to secure claims to Arctic territory. Such a vulnerable location seemed odd for a permanent settlement.. Sure enough Wikipedia supported my suspicions Kitvalina. The original village was located at the north end of the Kivalina Lagoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kivalina_Lagoon&action=edit&redlink=1) but was relocated to its present location in about 1900. Reindeer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reindeer) were brought to the area and some people were trained as reindeer herders, suggesting there as a government attempt to force a permanent settlement. From the history I can glean on the internet “the people of Kivalina, like the Ipiutak before them, utilized the barrier reef only as seasonal hunting grounds, making camp there in warm-weather months.” Their recent plans to relocate due to erosion and an expanding population are opportunistically blamed on global warming.
The Arctic people have long been victimized by “southern people’s” politics. Relocation of indigenous families became a tactic employed by all the “polar bear countries” in an international chess match to stake claims on Arctic resources. In 1925, Denmark relocated families in Greenland to counter any Norwegian claims to the island. The following year the Soviet government moved a small Eskimo community to Wrangel Island in order to replace an occupation of Alaskan Eskimos that had been established there by American interests. The relocation of families was also a crucial cold-war tactic by Canada to insure their claims on the Arctic, but not just against any Russian threats, but more so from perceived encroachments by the United States.631
In 1944, Henry Larsen, a staff sergeant in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, became the first to navigate the Northwest Passage from the west to east and back again. This celebrated feat greatly strengthened Canada’s claims to Arctic lands, and offset any potential Scandinavian claims based on Norway’s Roald Amundsen’s successful crossing of Canada’s Northwest Passage in 1903-06. However the US military bases built during World War II were now perceived as a threatening foothold. So in the 1950s Larsen was put in charge of relocating several Inuit families to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay in the far northern reaches of the Canadian Arctic. Grise Fiord is known by its Inuit name that means “the place that never thaws.” Although these were strategic places in ongoing international maneuverings, it was a region long abandoned by the Inuit’s ancestors. Government stories of an unspoiled land where hunting was more bountiful enticed Inuit families to leave the milder climates of their villages along the central Hudson Bay. Government officials sealed the deal by suggesting there was absolutely no risk and promised a swift return passage if the families found their new settlement unsatisfactory.
But it was a promise that Canadian officials never intended to keep. Ironically, the woman who played Nanook’s wife in the popular 1930s documentary “Nanook of the North” and her son (who was fathered by the documentary’s producer) were among the families relocated to Grise Ford. Although “Nanook of the North” had enthralled Americans and Europeans with a glamorized depiction of Inuit resilience and adaptability, their new settlements doled out such incredible hardships their resilience was severely tested. The struggles of those families have now been well documented in the book, The Long Exile: A Tale of Inuit Betrayal and Survival. It was the film producer’s granddaughter, daughter of his half-Inuit, half-Caucasian son, who finally forced the Canadian government to own up to their betrayal. The Canadian government finally made a public apology in 2008 and paid reparations to the offended families.

WX
07-31-2013, 07:21 AM
Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University.
On July 29, 2013 the BBC’s Hardtalk journalist Stephen Sackur wrote “The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade.” He opened the story with “within a decade Kivalina is likely to be under water. Gone, forever. Remembered – if at all – as the birthplace of America’s first climate change refugees.” He then quotes a local who laments, “The US government imposed this Western lifestyle on us, gave us their burdens and now they expect us to pick everything up and move it ourselves. What kind of government does that?”
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image002_thumb4.jpg?w=459&h=239 (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0025.jpg)
Given the context, such a statement sounds like the locals were feeling abandoned by global warming. But the tone also reminded me of the complaints by many native Arctic people who were relocated by the US, Canadian and Russian governments in a 20th century battle to secure claims to Arctic territory. Such a vulnerable location seemed odd for a permanent settlement.. Sure enough Wikipedia supported my suspicions Kitvalina. The original village was located at the north end of the Kivalina Lagoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kivalina_Lagoon&action=edit&redlink=1) but was relocated to its present location in about 1900. Reindeer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reindeer) were brought to the area and some people were trained as reindeer herders, suggesting there as a government attempt to force a permanent settlement. From the history I can glean on the internet “the people of Kivalina, like the Ipiutak before them, utilized the barrier reef only as seasonal hunting grounds, making camp there in warm-weather months.” Their recent plans to relocate due to erosion and an expanding population are opportunistically blamed on global warming.
The Arctic people have long been victimized by “southern people’s” politics. Relocation of indigenous families became a tactic employed by all the “polar bear countries” in an international chess match to stake claims on Arctic resources. In 1925, Denmark relocated families in Greenland to counter any Norwegian claims to the island. The following year the Soviet government moved a small Eskimo community to Wrangel Island in order to replace an occupation of Alaskan Eskimos that had been established there by American interests. The relocation of families was also a crucial cold-war tactic by Canada to insure their claims on the Arctic, but not just against any Russian threats, but more so from perceived encroachments by the United States.631
In 1944, Henry Larsen, a staff sergeant in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, became the first to navigate the Northwest Passage from the west to east and back again. This celebrated feat greatly strengthened Canada’s claims to Arctic lands, and offset any potential Scandinavian claims based on Norway’s Roald Amundsen’s successful crossing of Canada’s Northwest Passage in 1903-06. However the US military bases built during World War II were now perceived as a threatening foothold. So in the 1950s Larsen was put in charge of relocating several Inuit families to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay in the far northern reaches of the Canadian Arctic. Grise Fiord is known by its Inuit name that means “the place that never thaws.” Although these were strategic places in ongoing international maneuverings, it was a region long abandoned by the Inuit’s ancestors. Government stories of an unspoiled land where hunting was more bountiful enticed Inuit families to leave the milder climates of their villages along the central Hudson Bay. Government officials sealed the deal by suggesting there was absolutely no risk and promised a swift return passage if the families found their new settlement unsatisfactory.
But it was a promise that Canadian officials never intended to keep. Ironically, the woman who played Nanook’s wife in the popular 1930s documentary “Nanook of the North” and her son (who was fathered by the documentary’s producer) were among the families relocated to Grise Ford. Although “Nanook of the North” had enthralled Americans and Europeans with a glamorized depiction of Inuit resilience and adaptability, their new settlements doled out such incredible hardships their resilience was severely tested. The struggles of those families have now been well documented in the book, The Long Exile: A Tale of Inuit Betrayal and Survival. It was the film producer’s granddaughter, daughter of his half-Inuit, half-Caucasian son, who finally forced the Canadian government to own up to their betrayal. The Canadian government finally made a public apology in 2008 and paid reparations to the offended families.
Indigenous populations rarely if ever get a fair go at the hands of a dominant occupation. The fact is through that the island was protected by barrier ice from the encroaching waves and the ice has now retreated exposing the coastline. Whether you believe global warming is the result of human activity or not is beside the point, the planet is warming. The North polar cap is thinning and shrinking and glaciers are retreating.

PeterSibley
07-31-2013, 07:37 AM
It's not a matter of belief, science is not religion.

J P
07-31-2013, 10:07 AM
Speaking of warming and melting ... the current predictions for the glaciers in Glacier National Park in northern Montana are that they will be gone in the next 6 to 17 years. All gone. 150 glaciers in 1850, 25 today, 0 by 2030. According to the USGS (http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/global.htm) the higher elevations of that region "have experienced three times the global average temperature increase over the past century."

pipefitter
07-31-2013, 08:54 PM
Yes, the glaciers are retreating. The problem being that arrogant humans think there is a comfortable and convenient glacial average based on the last few hundred years. What was the consequence of the largest glacial retreat to date?

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/geo/glaciers/glacimg/glacMap.gif

Have we accelerated it? Perhaps. If so, by how many years? It may seem like a quickening with our perception of time as it is, but in Earth chronological terms, I don't think the planet notices. I would say that the glacial mass of 20,000 years ago has retreated much more than what we are witnessing now.

If the ice was to return, where would you like it to stop? In other words, what would be convenient for us?

WX
07-31-2013, 09:19 PM
I don't think ice is going to be our problem for a very long time.

The Bigfella
07-31-2013, 10:13 PM
I don't think ice is going to be our problem for a very long time.

Tell that to the passengers on the Titanic...

varadero
08-01-2013, 02:27 AM
The problem with data that only has a 34 year life span, is that if there are natural cycles with longer periods, they do not show. This is a National Geographic map from 1971. Not much sea ice there.




http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/screenhunter_11-jul-30-19-16.jpg?w=599&h=451 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/screenhunter_11-jul-30-19-16.jpg)

varadero
08-01-2013, 02:28 AM
The next map overlays current ice extent on the 1971 map, with green representing ice present in 2013 that was not present in 1971, and red representing the opposite.http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/screenhunter_12-jul-30-19-29.jpg?w=640&h=527 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/screenhunter_12-jul-30-19-29.jpg)

varadero
08-01-2013, 02:30 AM
NSIDC likes to pretend that ice has been declining steadily, by starting their graphs near the century maximum in 1978.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_168-jun-15-11-08.jpg?w=640&h=353&h=353 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_168-jun-15-11-08.jpg)
N_05_plot.png (420240) (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/May/N_05_plot.png)

But sadly for them, the 1990 IPCC report captured the growth in ice prior to 1979.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg?w=640 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg)NCAR mentioned the ice growth at the time

by Walter Orr Roberts Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations.
www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf)

Phillip Allen
08-01-2013, 02:33 AM
I hate being manipulated...

The Bigfella
08-01-2013, 02:39 AM
I hate being manipulated...

Does it happen to you often?

varadero
08-01-2013, 02:42 AM
There was so little ice in 1969, that experts thought it would be ice-free “within a decade or two“

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_52-apr-24-18-33.gif?w=432&h=60&h=60 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_52-apr-24-18-33.gif)
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_50-apr-24-18-32.gif?w=261&h=592&h=592 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_50-apr-24-18-32.gif)http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_51-apr-24-18-33.gif?w=248&h=272&h=272 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_51-apr-24-18-33.gif)
http://news.google.com/newspapers (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=eWJSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6707,940387&dq=arctic+ocean+will+soon+be+an+open+sea&hl=en)

WX
08-01-2013, 06:51 AM
There was so little ice in 1969, that experts thought it would be ice-free “within a decade or two“
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_52-apr-24-18-33.gif?w=432&h=60&h=60 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_52-apr-24-18-33.gif)
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_50-apr-24-18-32.gif?w=261&h=592&h=592 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_50-apr-24-18-32.gif)http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_51-apr-24-18-33.gif?w=248&h=272&h=272 (http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_51-apr-24-18-33.gif)
http://news.google.com/newspapers (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=eWJSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6707,940387&dq=arctic+ocean+will+soon+be+an+open+sea&hl=en)



Smart man, a bit out on his prediction but it's a shame nobody really listened back then. Of course the powers that be still aren't really listening.

pipefitter
08-01-2013, 11:57 AM
It doesn't even matter if one is a denier or not. The current world population, regardless of it's use of fossil fuel, is going to create an unnatural carbon or greenhouse gas release. If the world stopped using the major contributors today, or even 50 years ago, it would only prolong the inevitable.

Global warming is not the top reason that humans should stop causing pollution with regard to human health and existence. It's just a tool for a certain faction of world leadership to get their share of the dough from the industries that control the planet now. It's their only hope of even playing on the same field.

J P
08-01-2013, 12:46 PM
What was the consequence of the largest glacial retreat to date?

Canadians?


If the ice was to return, where would you like it to stop? In other words, what would be convenient for us?

I don't know about "us", but right here works for me:

http://hugefloods.com/Glacial-Lake-Missoula-Map.gif

The return of Glacial Lake Missoula would greatly improve the sailing in Montana.
And while we're at it, could we get back those little original North American ponies ...
and stag-moose, and mammoths, and ...