From the UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD and the department of “unknown negative feedbacks” comes this interesting study. While there have been numerous claims that warmer Polar temperatures (due to posited global warming effects) will cause more iceberg calving, I’m sure it will come as quite a shock to those same folks when they discover that there’s a negative feedback for CO2 in the process. Via Eurkealert.
Giant icebergs play key role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere
Key points:
- Giant icebergs leave trail of carbon sequestration in their wake — a month after they have passed
- Geographers analysed 175 satellite images of ocean colour which is an indicator of phytoplankton productivity at the ocean’s surface Giant icebergs are responsible for storing up to 20 per cent of carbon in the Southern Ocean, a new study has found.
Pioneering research from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Geography discovered melting water from giant icebergs, which contains iron and other nutrients, supports hitherto unexpectedly high levels of phytoplankton growth.
This activity, known as carbon sequestration, contributes to the long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide, therefore helping to slow global warming.
During the study, which is the first of its kind on this scale, a team of scientists led by Professor Grant Bigg analysed 175 satellite images of ocean colour — which is an indicator of phytoplankton productivity at the ocean’s surface — from a range of icebergs in the Southern Ocean which were at least 18 km in length.
The images from 2003-2013 showed that enhanced phytoplankton productivity, which has a direct impact on carbon storage in the ocean, extends hundreds of kilometres from giant icebergs, and persists for at least one month after the iceberg passes.
Professor Bigg said: “This new analysis reveals that giant icebergs may play a major role in the Southern Ocean carbon cycle.
“We detected substantially enhanced chlorophyll levels, typically over a radius of at least four-10 times the iceberg’s length.
“The evidence suggests that assuming carbon export increases by a factor of five-10 over the area of influence and up to a fifth of the Southern Ocean’s downward carbon flux originates with giant iceberg fertilisation.
“If giant iceberg calving increases this century as expected, this negative feedback on the carbon cycle may become more important than we previously thought.”
The Southern Ocean plays a significant part in the global carbon cycle, and is responsible for approximately 10 per cent of the ocean’s total carbon sequestration through a mixture of biologically driven and chemical processes, including phytoplankton growth.
Previous studies have suggested that ocean fertilization from icebergs makes relatively minor contributions to phytoplankton uptake of CO2.
However this research, published today (Jan. 11, 2016) in Nature Geoscience, shows that melting water from icebergs is responsible for as much as 20 per cent of the carbon sequestered to the depths of the Southern Ocean.
###
Of course, this is old news, as WUWT carried the story back in 2011 that says exactly the same thing.
Related:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150629021345/http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20140623201108/http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1746.html
Also related (not quite as directly):
http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/11/26/rapid-plankton-growth-could-signal-climate-change
It seems that increased CO2 levels in the ocean increase the growth of calcifying coccolithophores a lot, which removes CO2 from the oceans — another negative (stabilizing) feedback mechanism.
When I was down in Christchurch NZ 2006/7 new years, I could have bought a ticket for a helicopter ride out to land on one of those megaburgs that had floated up off the coast. Those down under mates find any excuse to extract a tourist dollar.
I was too chicken to set down on something that could turn over at any minute.
Can you imagine what is under the water of that 50 km long monster ??
g
Where is the iron, et. al. coming from?
The dust that was trapped in the ice?
I suppose partly from deposits, but mostly from the grinding of the rock bottom and wall sides during the gliding down of the glaciers/sheets…
How well does such debris mix into the bulk of the glacier? I would expect most of it to be concentrated in the first few inches of the glacier. Whereas dust should be pretty much evenly distributed through the glacier.
Entrained debris within a glacier is common throughout, both from upland rock slides deposited on glaciar surfaces and deformation of the glacier through ice flow processes that incorporates glacial till vertically within the ice.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/glossary/icons/internal-deformation.jpg
MarkW, most debris is concentrated near the bottom, but most melt water concentrates near the bottom too, forming under-ice channels…
My guess: Biological activity on the ice, i.e. birds and penguins which means ultimately from fish.
These bergs represent an accumulation of many millennia of precipitation. Even in relatively dust poor areas, there will still be a significant concentration in the ice, released comparatively fast as it melts. West Australia is both very iron rich and very dusty. Some of that surely reaches Antarctica some of the time.
Iron is the second most abundant metal in the earth’s crust, after Aluminum.
More iron in the core though.
g
Hilarious. Gotta love settled science …
Thanks, Anthony.
w.
It appears to be more re-settled all the time. Yesterday’s expert is today’s fool.
icebergs calve when the mass of the ice grows too much to remain attached to the glacier/ice sheet. it’s not really much to do with ‘melting’ in the normal sense
But is it not the case that smaller chunks travel further than larger chunks, so that there is a higher probability of entering warmer currents where they do melt?
I was talking about when a piece of ice first breaks away from its parent glacier or ice shelf
As H.G. Wells might say, it was the smallest creatures that doomed the giant invaders of the public consciousness…..with some help by science process and fact checking.
Just more unknown unknowns surfacing.
Memo to Jerry Brown and other users of Antarctic ice delusions
This suggests that the Southern Ocean looks like a good candidate fore geoengineering by iron-oxide salting–as was the Gulf of Alaska. A small test should be run. A proposal for funding should win quick acceptance from the NSF.
😉
It’s been tried. Was a big bust as I recall.
g
Plenty of iron comes out of the Amazon river mouth.
Well, I’m glad it’s settled…
sounds more like they’ve realised that global warming is not going to happen and are now preparing the ground with excuses. Well it would have warmed …. except for all the negative feedbacks we forgot to account for and the positive f/b we exaggerated .. . and .. and ,… we must act now , before it’s too late !
I’m confused. Is this worse than we thought or better than we thought?
P.S. Maybe our regular commenter Auto can arrange for a tanker of gin and a tanker of tonic to meet up at the ice berg. All we have to do is is charter a cruise there and man-oh-man, what a party we could have!
P.P.S.I’ll bring a couple of limes.
With two tankers full of gin & tonic, you’ll probably only have limies turn up to your party ! LOL
“…a tanker of tonic …”
That’s a lot of CO2, but I’m in. Don’t forget the limes!
But, but, but… Paul. No worries on the CO2 in the tonic.The study says the melting ice berg will sequester more CO2. It’s a carbon neutral party.
Oh, I’ll bring a bottle of dry vermouth just in case the tonic tanker doesn’t show up. Pour that into the tanker of gin and you’ll have one very, very large and very, very dry martini. (Shopping memo to self: buy one jar of olives.)
That’s already been done by the Brits at the North Pole…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7485313.stm
” Is this worse than we thought or better than we thought?”
I’m pretty sure we’re doomed either way.
What chance does a single phytoplankton have at rebutting a big mouth like Al Gore or Jerry Brown. Well there x quadrillion of them might and even then it takes time to break through the settled science and closed minds.
“This activity, known as carbon sequestration, contributes to the long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide, therefore helping to slow global warming.”
Should be “… therefore reducing atmospheric CO2 and any effects, both positive and negative, on the biosphere that CO2 may have.
If one has time or inclination to read the Glossary below, this statement should be,…” This activity known as carbon sequestration, allows removal of elemental C from the “Carbon Cycle”, and storage as stable oxides and /or carbonates on land, in seas and the atmosphere where these compounds are known to have beneficial effect. On the other hand global warming is a postulate to now that still has to be proven to exist or what its absolute effects will be.”
GLOBAL WARMING GLOSSARY
The term global warming has yet to be clearly and defined scientifically and quantified in order to demonstrate theorised changes with time. A glossary of terms is a means to start to examine the steps necessary to propose a definition.
Global Warming – yet to be defined but popularly related to Average Global Temperature, another undefined qualitative parameter.
Global Temperature- undefined seemingly quantitative term.
Temperature- degree of hotness or coldness of matter, a point- and time- specific parameter SI unit degree Kelvin.
Average Global Temperature- an undefined seemingly quantitative meaningless average.
Temperature Anomaly- vaguely defined difference between modeled imaginary temperatures.
Carbon- Tetravalent element having three alotropic forms, graphite, diamond or amorphic. Some forms readily oxidise. 15th most abundant element on Earth and 4th most abundant in the universe. Sometimes confused by laity with its two common oxides.
Carbon Monoxide- gaseous product when C is oxidised in restricted level of oxygen.
Carbon Dioxide- gaseous product when C or CO are oxidised exothermically in oxygen.
Warm- Sensory qualitative feeling.
Hot- Hotter than warm.
Cool- Sensory qualitative feeling.
Cold- Colder than cool.
Heat- loose term for thermal energy.
Energy- capacity for doing work, SI unit Joule.
Force- product of Mass x Acceleration, SI unit Newton
Work- product of Force x distance moved, SI unit Joule.
Thermal energy- energy contained by a body by motion of particles , allows mass to exhibit temperature, SI unit Joules
Heat content- Thermal energy contained in a given mass at a given temperature. SI unit Joule.
Specific Heat- .Quantity of thermal energy required to change heat content of a specified mass by one temperature degree.
Solar energy- loose term for Sun’s radiant energy received on Earth. SI unit joule.
Radiant energy- loose term for wave-like energy of all frequencies. May be reflected, transmitted, absorbed by matter. SI unit Joule/M2
Global Heat Content- Total heat energy contained by Earth atmosphere, oceans, ice caps and land. Increasing value indicating Earth warms. SI unit Joule NB not temperature.
Sequester- To set apart, remove from normal access. Oxidation (combustion) of C is a form of sequestration in oxides.
More and more we are looking for smaller and smaller heat inputs.
I’m waiting for the time when someone calculates that the amount of heat expended in worrying about Global Warming is exactly the amount of heat needed to account for the rise…
The bigger the berg the more turbulent its wake: they travel against surface winds and surface currents. So even if the big bergs were chemically inert we might expect mixing in the wake sufficient to add nutrients to the euphotic zone, as may be happening around Gibraltar: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771403003147
–AGF
That is an interesting and very good point. Water below the euphoric zone is lower pH precisely because it is more nutrient rich. North Americas Pacific Coast seasonal upwellings have been particularly well studied in this regard.
I see a reference from Watts’ 2011 post covers it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064510003668
From the abstract: “We also found evidence that this iceberg was disrupting the Weddell Deep Water to depths up to 1500 m.”
–AGF
Is the “euphoric zone” also known as “happy hour”?
Reading the latest in climate science feels like watching three year olds playing in a sandbox having a wonderful time. It makes me sad to think that they will have to grow up sometime.
Gee whiz, if those Greenland glaciers calve then we could run short of CO2.
As we read more and more outlandish balderdash from the alarmists on various issues concerning “CO2 is going to destroy us all if we don’t dismantle our industrial society”, I would like to point out two very interesting recent matters. One is a post written by Kristen who comments here periodically and it is on the folly of the current climate sensitivity ideas of the IPCC and others of the “consensus”. It can be read here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/the-climate-sensitivity-folly/comment-page-1/#comment-670
I think he nails the problem down very well in that short and easy to read post. However, in comments he linked to a debate over at Dr. Spencer’s blog on the same subject that I found vastly entertaining. The exchange between Kristian and Dr. Jan P. Perlwitz begins here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/#comment-205409
Now the exchange goes on for a while, but I don’t think one can find a more entertaining or more educational exchange on the folly that is CAGW. If anyone has a better one, please share.
~ Mark
@markstoval
I have read most of the link you suggested, the discussion between Kristian and Perlwitz. Absolutely astonishing that Perlwitz could not or would not give something in the way of an answer. He is a real twit and sounds very childish. And this is someone from NASA, GISS and Columbia? He is very obviously, completely
without any sort of answer to the questions posed to him and given the credentials he supposedly has, should be more than happy to share his scientific knowledge concerning the subject of the discussion. After all, he, I assume, is paid by our taxes… So why play babyish word games like he does? The answer is obvious…He doesn’t know. He can’t explain how C02 would cause global warming because he has no idea.
The discussion between Perlwitz and Kristian should be published far and wide and even sent to some of our reps in Congress and the Senate. I am appalled.
Thanks again for the link.
D
My email to Dr. Jan Perlwitz
Dear Dr. Jan Perlwitz. 11 Jan 2016
I happened to read a discussion on a blog today that you had with someone who called himself Kristen
concerning global warming caused by C02 in the atmosphere. It took place on a site maintained by a Dr. Spencer. Out of curiosity I read the exchanges between you and Kristen and it raised a few questions for me that I would like to ask you about. For some background of myself, in order to qualify me as a reasonable questioner, I qualify myself as fairly well educated and well informed in the sciences, but not as a ‘scientist’ as defined by the educational institutions who do so.
My father was an analytical chemist in applied spectroscopy and holds a few patents including a couple concerning Inductively Coupled Plasma and some of the methods and instrumentation he designed. He was well rounded in the sciences and worked for a couple of well known research companies in the 60s through the 80s. As a kid I had great fun on the weekends when he took me to the labs to check up on some of the work he was currently involved with. He imparted to me a great love of learning and of the sciences and also of the history and methods of scientific inquiry, including how the scientific process works. He wrote and published many papers that are still referenced and cited to this day by many other researchers and publishers involved and interested in his original works. He was my ‘go to’ guy for answers to my many questions about anything, especially about my science questions. He passed away a couple of years ago and I no longer have my source of knowledge to help answer my questions these days. He was extremely generous and patient with anyone with questions for him about his knowledge of science and he loved to impart it to anyone interested, and, as I have found, that most people with specialized knowledge are of the same inclination…To share their knowledge freely, as he did, regarding science which is in the public domain.
With that said, after having read your exchange and discussion with Kristen on Dr. Spencers web site from earlier in the month regarding C02 and its effect on the climate, and being an expert in Geophysics working for NASA/GISS and Columbia and involved in the climate issue regarding global warming and climate change due to C02, why were you not able to answer the questions posed to you by Kristen regarding the very subject you are supposed to be a specialist in? As a person who is paid his salary by taxpayer money, what reason would you have to refuse to answer Kristens simple questions? To me it sounds like you do not have an answer and that you refused to acknowledge it. You did not and cannot answer his simple and direct questions regarding how C02 in the Earths atmosphere could have any effect on raising the global temperature. You made yourself look sort of foolish in trying to get out of answering his question, and you, rather than acting as a scientist in a public capacity, put his question back on him as if he were the expert. You are the one who is supposed to have this knowledge and there is no logical or reasonable explanation for you to have not imparted it freely. If you do not know the answer to his questions, then simply say that you do not know the answer rather that go round and round with condescending replies to him as if he were the one who should know and if he didn’t, he isn’t worth your time. It was a childish display on your part and not worthy of a scientist that we pay with our tax money and who works for an institution like NASA/GISS and is affiliated with Columbia. If you do have the answers to Kristens questions, I would kindly urge you to answer them freely, openly and as a person worthy of his Degree and the institutions he works for and also for the people who pay him.
Sincerely,
R. Dahlquist
That was a great letter to the ‘good doctor’. Well written, polite, and to the point. I doubt he will respond, but even if he does not you may have given him something to think about.
Thanks for sharing that letter!
~ Mark
ristvan:
Was “euphoric zone” intentional? I like the idea of a happy upper ocean (cheerful plankton, walruses, etc).
TGW
I’m going to “Go Green” and recycle an old comment:
“When glaciers calve, alarmist have a cow. That explains all the bellowing!”
Not at all inconvenient IMO. This bit is potentially good news:
What I don’t see quantified is how much that 20 percent previously unknown sequestration might be expected to reduce temperature sensitivity to any external forcing.
And what is clear to see is that the science is hardly “settled”.
How long ago was that claim made? How many new studies with more ‘things” not known back then?
Gunga Din,
Long enough ago for you to apparently “forget” the context of the statement … or even be able to provide an exact citation and quote. It might occur to an honest and intelligent truth-seeker that the fact climate research continues that “the science [of atmospheric radiative forcing] is settled” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
Brandon Gates:
Thankyou for your clear demonstration of the usual warmunist practice of using obfuscation to ‘muddy’ an issue.
Gunga Din asked
And you answered by saying in total
Your answer begins with a falsehood: Gunga Din said nothing to state, suggest or imply that he does not remember “the context of the statement”.
You follow that with misdirection by implying that Gunga Din has provided an incorrect “citation and quote”, but you provide no evidence to support your implication.
Not content with that, you ‘throw mud’ by impugning both his honesty and his intelligence when you imply Gunga Din is not “an honest and intelligent truth-seeker”.
And you finish by asserting that “the science [of atmospheric radiative forcing] is settled” doesn’t mean what you {i.e. Gunga Din} seem to think it means” without stating either
(a) what you claim Gunga Din thinks it means
or
(b) what you claim it does mean.
Yes, Brandon Gates, your answer to Gunga Din is classic warmunist response to a reasonable question:
You don’t answer the question.
You present a falsehood.
You provide a misdirection.
You provide gratuitous insult of the questioner.
And you conclude by pretending you know the answer to the question when you provide nothing which suggests you do.
Richard
richardscourtney,
A falsehood? Apparently you are in posession of evidence I do not have about what goes on inside Gunga’s brain. Do feel very free to share.
No, my argument was that Gunga didn’t provide a direct citation or quote AT ALL. Do you not know how to read?
Gunga’s claim, Gunga’s burden of proof. I realize this simple precept confounds some people from time to time, but do please do your best to keep up with who wrote what first. Thanks.
It’s difficult for me to imagine that anyone actually believes “the science is settled” applies to ALL research which falls under the umbrella of climate science.
a) I prefer to allow people to clarify/expand their meaning.
b) “the science [of atmospheric radiative forcing] is settled” (Hint: read what’s inside the [brackets])
Dearie me, I declare that you apparently have awfully low standards of reasonableness.
I took it to be rhetorical.
Entirely possible, but I reiterate: thus far you have presented zero evidence of having any better idea of what Gunga was thinking than I do.
Well no, it’s demonstrably factual that Gunga did not provide a direct quote or a citation. One might reasonably suspect that Gunga has built a strawman, and I have indeed raised that possibility. Let Gunga prove me wrong by providing one.
Gratuitious? Oh the humanity!
Try growing thicker skin, Courtney, especially since I wasn’t even writing to you.
Oh. Well what I know is that a number of people have picked up the “science is settled” meme, which is a matter of public record and should be beyond dispute.
It really should be obvious that climate research continues, and again; I think an honest and rational truth-seeker would at the very least posit that the entire damn field is not considered settled since so many people are continuing to study climate.
Apologies my dear Richard S., I do believe my greatest sin here is having a facility for basic logic, and I get it that such an ability really needles people like you who incessantly peddle indefensibly nonsensical bullcrap.
Good evening.
richardscourtney,
That was another great summary and analysis of the duplicity of Brandon Gates. Thanks for that, and thanks for all the other times you bring logic to bear on these
twitspeople.Brandon Gates:
I write to thank you for giving me such great amusement when you wrote
You claim to have “a facility for basic logic”!
Now that really, really is funny! I laughed so much I fell off my chair!
Richard
When I first go to WUWT I usually open a post and hit “Ctrl” and “F” then type in “Gunga” to see if anyone replied to something I said. There were 24 hits on this post.
Richard, great comment and thanks.
All I can add is that Brandon seemed to want citations for “the science is settled”.
Here’s a few.
“In 1997 during the Kyoto Protocol Treaty negotiations in Japan, Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was asked about scientists who challenge United Nations conclusions that global warming was man-made. He answered, “The science is settled…we’re not going to reopen it here.”
Not quite “the science is settled” but what else could he mean?
” On the May 31, 2006, edition of “The Early Show” with Harry Smith, Gore said it himself, “the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency.” He continued adamantly, “There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the evidence.”
Perhaps he meant what he said here?
https://mobile.twitter.com/algore/status/359766012863844352
“During a “Today” show interview with Katie Couric, Gore again declared, “The debate’s over. The scientific community has reached as strong a consensus as you will ever find in science.” Couric agreed with Gore and followed up with this statement, “Where there is disagreement among scientists is not if, but when, we may see drastic environmental changes across the globe.”
“EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared to Congress in 2010, “The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming.” Even President Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address said, “But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”
Then of course there’s this.
http://www.thescienceisstillsettled.com/
A curious thing I noticed in doing a couple of “the science is settled” searches is that the more recent hits were of those seeming to be backing away that statement while still being gung-ho for the idea. (IE http://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/what-is-and-is-not-considered-settled-with-climate-science-913 )
Mods!
Is the comment I just made in moderation or in whatever you call the bit bucket?
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad life. -mod]
Michael Jankowski,
I’m pretty clear on what the word means, both in general and specifically as used in the headline to this post. I simply don’t agree with the argument. Keep plugging away, and maybe you’ll understand the difference between abject illiteracy and informed dissent.
“As much as 20%”, read far more likely 10 or 5%. You don’t normally think of the Southern Ocean as being nutrient depleted with all that upwelling that supports the “krill” and such. Mesmells yet another apology for the crawl.
Statements such as, “most of the observed warming since 1950 is very likely due to anthropogenic causes” imply that there are other causes for temperature change at the surface. I find it difficult to characterize looking for, and proposing other mechanisms for temperature change as apologetics. What that looks like to me is rather fundamental methods of doing science within the scope of a massive and complex physical system which encompasses an entire planet.
Oh, and nutrient supply, like radiative flux, is an additive property, not an either/or proposition. This really should be an a priori proposition, but I do understand that obstinate resistance to the bleeding obvious is the ultimate refuge of the wilfully obtuse.
Statements such as, “most of the observed warming since 1950 is very likely due to anthropogenic causes” imply that there are other causes for temperature change at the surface.
It is this type of red herring statement that should give the laity the clue that proponents are being careless with the truth.
High school science students can explain the causes for temperature changes in solid liquid or gas. What many of our high school students cannot understand is the growing body of teachers who fail to understand that temperature is not the correct parameter to choose to demonstrate the now mythical global warming the UN would have us accept.
Brandon Gates:
There was no need for you to say
We have all seen you repeatedly provide obstinate resistance to the bleeding obvious and we all no you do it because you are “wilfully obtuse”.
Richard
“but I do understand that obstinate resistance to the bleeding obvious is the ultimate refuge of the wilfully obtuse.”
Says Brandon, while looking at himself in his mirror.
“Obtuse” in Brandon’s world is anything that does not conform. He is not even “willfully” obtuse because his position is not a matter of will, but rather of belief.
Don’t get me wrong, he is a brilliant and well studied man. But science requires at least a temporary suspension of belief. You have to step back every day and question even your most cherished beliefs you based your hypotheses on.
Regrettably, Brandon (with many others) does not do that. He is unwilling to even consider the possibility that the lack of any significant temperature response to a viral increase of human CO2 over the last 18 (or whatever) years means that CO2 is a handicapped GHG.
He is unwilling to consider that the clear CO2 dependence on temperature (with possible minor exceptions) in the Pleistocene indicates that CO2 is a limited GHG.
My sense is that he has not studied deep time very much but at Phanerozoic scale, again, there is no rational relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Many things change with scale. The wave forms of matter are inversely proportional to mass. Sub atomic particles exhibit wave behavior that is infinitesimal to nonexistence at molecular scale.
When a relationship spans many different scales. It is time to take a step back…
RE: That 50KM long iceberg.
That’s a pretty big iceberg. You could live on that thing and declare yourself an independent country.
At least until it melts anyway.
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad life. -mod]
But..but…ummmm…think of the children !!!!
Just returned from Patagonia and Torres Del Paine park in Chile. In the park the guides were explaining how the huge granite towers were left by the retreating glaciers when they removed the softer rock as they retreated. Later, at the ice fields, we were told the Grey Glacier and most glaciers in Chile are retreating and that this is absolutely abnormal as glaciers should only grow and not retreat. Global warming was of course to blame. Inside sat a giant poster showing an orange half of the earth being insulated by some sort of reflective layer of poisonous CO2. It was terrifying. There was also a picture of penguins floating on an iceberg. Imagine! Actually a few of the guides I talked to seemed to believe we were warming somewhat, but that it was due to long natural cycles. They said working there really illustrated how short of a time span we humans have been around and they didn’t buy all the hype.
So enough icebergs melt, it will reverse sea level rise? That is good news!
If you look at the graph of UAH NoPol since about 2002, you will see distinct cooling divided into 2 parts with a single jump in about 2010.
UAH NoPol has 2015 in 13th place in the satellite record.
The suggestion of “warming”, is just that.. a suggestion
SoPol is cooling as well,.with 2015 being the thrid COLDEST in the satellite record.
As I understand it, calving is a sign of increased shear within the glacier caused by gravity acting upon addition mass added at higher elevations. As snowfall increases the mass of the glacier, gravity causes the glacier ice to be compressed, which eventually results in shear.
Compression causes shear which is observed as stress when ice deforms by the crystals sliding along the faces of adjacent crystals. The surface of a glacier moves faster down slope than the lower strata, the base of the glacier being locked to the bedrock. When the moving ice reaches the coast flotation produces tension because of the difference in angle of the downward and upward forces. Tension within the glacier causes fracturing. The outermost part of the glacier then breaks off at the fracture, a phenomenon we observe as calving.
Calving is therefore caused by increase in glacier mass, which we now know from NASA results from increased snowfall at the top of the glaciers.
I recall 25 years ago someone was peddling the minerals from glacier runoff as the ideal mixture for humans, concurrent with the ‘caveman’ diet.
“…melting water from giant icebergs, which contains iron and other nutrients, supports hitherto unexpectedly high levels of phytoplankton growth.”
Is this the same iron that Greenpeace (and others) have been railing against for about thirty years? The same iron that was shown to massively increase the CO2 uptake if spread on the water? The same iron decried as an irresponsible experiment when someone tried it again a few years ago off the West Coast of Canada?
Well, holy oxides Batman! Our understanding of what the limitation to growth in the ocean w correct all along. Carbon sequestration at low price, here we come.
Every ship that plies the seas can start chucking powdered laterite overboard throughout their journeys and make enough carbon offset money to cover the fuel cost.
Think food.
shhh – the expert’s mumbling in his sleep.
awake he shall do away with all ’em catastrophic climate sciencees.
And fore he shall errect the holy church of the knowing sciencials teaching the laity the decalog of the
– Loose Terms:
Hot- Hotter than warm.
Cool- Sensory qualitative feeling.
Cold- Colder than cool.
Heat- loose term for
thermal energy.
Energy- capacity for doing work.
Force- product of Mass and Acceleration by Will.
Work- product of Force and distance moved.
Thermal energy- energy
contained by a body by
motion of particles.
Heat content- Thermal energy contained in a given mass at a given temperature.
Specific Heat- Quantity of thermal energy required to change heat content of a specified mass by one
temperature degree.
Solar energy- loose term for Sun’s radiant energy received on Earth.
Radiant energy- loose term for wave-like energy of all frequencies.
May be reflected, transmitted, absorbed by matter.
/ the never ending reign of confounders of new dogmata /