Old Radar Sites In Greenland Show Icecap Growth Over the Years
(And let’s not forget what we’ve learned about the temperature reporting from the DEW line Radar Stations – Anthony)
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
Though the ice may be melting around the edges of the Greenland Icecap in recent years during the warm mode of the AMO much as it did during the last warm phase in the 1930s to 1950s, snow and ice levels continue to rise in most of the interior. Johannessen in 2005 estimated an annual net increase of ice by 2 inches a year.
(Above: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland, Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev, Science Express on 20 October 2005 Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1013 � 1016, DOI: 10.1126/science.1115356)
A Canadian Icecap emailer noted during the cold war there were two massive radar sites built on the Greenland icecap now abandoned. They are called Dye-2 and Dye-3. When built they sat high above the snow, recent pictures show how the snow is building up around them, proving the snow build-up in recent times. This demonstrates this snow accumulation over time.
Dye-2 and 3 were among 58 Distance Early Warning Line radar stations built by America between 1955-1960 across Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Iceland at a cost of billions of dollars. Their powerful radars monitored the skies constantly in case Russia decided to send bombers towards America. After extensive studies in late 1957, the USAF selected sites for two radar stations on the ice cap in southern Greenland. Dye-2 was to be built approximately 100 miles east of Sondrestrom AB and 90 miles south of the Arctic Circle at an altitude of 7, 600 feet, and Dye-3 was to be located approximately 100 miles east of DYE II and slightly south at an elevation of 8,600 feet.
The selected locations for the new radar sites were found to receive from three to four feet of snow fall each year. Since the winds were constantly blowing with speeds as much as 100 mph, this snow accumulation constantly formed large drifts. To overcome this potential problem, it was decided that the Dye sites should be elevated approximately twenty feet above the surface of the ice cap.
Dye 3 was built in 1960. From a distance the structure, with its onion-shaped dome, looks like a Russian orthodox church. Dye 3 was an ice core site and previously part of the DEW line in Greenland. (The Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line: A Bibliography and Documentary Resource List Arctic Institute of North America, Page 23). As a Distant Early Warning line base, it was disbanded in years 1990/1991. The Dye 3 cores were part of the GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Project initiated in 1971) and, at 2037 meters, was the deepest of the 20 ice cores recovered from the Greenland ice sheet as part of GISP. Samples from the base of the 2km deep Dye 3 and the 3km deep GRIP cores revealed that high-altitude southern Greenland has been inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects within the past million years. (Eske Willerslev, et al. (2007) Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland Science 317 111-114)
The first image below is from 1972.
See larger image here.
Here it is in 2006.
See larger image here.
In looking back at the time the sites were abandoned, one console operator lamented “We were very busy during this time and I was sad to see it end. I remember thinking of all the waste,” he said. The site is slowly disappearing into the snow. Its outbuildings are no longer visible and drifting snow will consume it completely one day, but that day appears to be decades away.” Read more here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good thing temps aren’t really rising then, ain’t it.
The Ice in Greenland is Growing
It must be due to the increased concentration of atmospheric CO2. “Green” things thrive on CO2.
Ivins and his colleagues are refining the computer models used to understand and predict post-glacial rebound. It turns out that beneath the ice sheet covering Greenland, the mantle isn’t changing the shape of the “bathtub” very fast. “This tells us that the large mass changes Grace detects in the southeastern region of Greenland aren’t due to post-glacial rebound,” says Ivins.
Any bets on whether we will ever see published reports thoroughly explaining the alledged “refinements”.
Roger (10:43:27) :
Let me get this straight – The ice and snow melt – -the sea rises – but nothing gets flooded because the land rises along with the sea. Where’s the problem?
Unless you happen to live on certain south sea islands…some of which seem to be sinking…..in which case you go to the UN and demand: LOTS of money! or Lots of landfill……[sarc off] cdl
RE: Alan the Brit
“I have a suspicion that we are in free-fall over climate. We observe a change in something, being simple bead wearing stick waving humans we have to attribute it to the gods being angry at us, so we have to appease them! Why can’t think about these changes & conclude that they are simply things we haven’t noticed before, not that we’ve caused them to happen.”
and…”The whole thing becomes a whirling mass of self-supporting & justifying for existence rather than pure research & science.”
I am just a retired health/sports educator, but your statements have summed it all up very eloquently! It’s great to see the “true scientists” putting out organized challenges to this madness!
Jack Simmons (21:06:25) :
Sometime in the future, and I don’t think it will be decades, people will simply laugh at this silliness.
Or curse us for wasting valuable resources, depends how far the AGW scam and associated socio-political changes progress.
Alan the Brit (04:21:38) :
…
I have a suspicion that we are in free-fall over climate. We observe a change in something, being simple bead wearing stick waving humans we have to attribute it to the gods being angry at us, so we have to appease them! Why can’t think about these changes & conclude that they are simply things we haven’t noticed before, not that we’ve caused them to happen.
IMHO The underlying problem is “Fear of Powerlessness and Insignificance”.
Like this. “Change Occurs” -> “(Assume) We are the Agency Responsible” -> “Avoid experience of powerlessness and insignificance in the face of change”.
For any human being – the distinction between what is subject to control and what is not, is a key boundary and directly tied to the instinct for survival.
Because what is uncontrollable may kill you.
End IMHO
c) Gulf Stream acceleration.
d) Increased density of water due to oxygen isotope changes.
e) Wegener’s grave.
f) Boston Celtics wins.
g) Polar bear population increase.
Is the behaviour of Greenland glaciers understood well enough to trust an attribution of a change? There still seem to be many new things being discovered about glacier behaviour.
The presidents of the Maldives have been asking the UN for money due to global warming causing rising sea levels (the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol require rich countries to pay). But the sea level in the Maldives went down, not up. Such details are ignored.
Craig D. Lattig
“Unless you happen to live on certain south sea islands…some of which seem to be sinking…..in which case you go to the UN and demand: LOTS of money! or Lots of landfill……[sarc off] cdl”
Is Venice, Italy eligible?
TonyB, the Brit, thanks also for the excellent links, and with Alan the Brit, that makes three of us. Vineyards in Yorkshire Alan? Got a link? I visited an old Roman vineyard in Shropshire on one of my recent travels. I must put the Yorkshire site on my list.
With respect to the San Francisco Bay, the only major alarm would seem to be the ugliness associated with a potential moratorium on completing the new Bay Bridge segment, the California budget not being too healthy these days.
Fighting carbon dioxide’s an expensive proposition ya know.
If it is warming then why this?
http://www.piercecountyherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=18723§ion=homepage
have a warm 1st
PhilinCalifornia,
I live in SF so had found this reference previously:
http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/planning/cc_slr_rpt_1988.pdf
It gives details on land subsidence and average sea level rise.
Here is a page where you can access tide gauge data:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/station_retrieve.shtml?
type=Historic+Tide+Data
Here is SF’s oldest Gauge site:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/topics/navops/ports/supp_sanfran_tidegage.html
I live at the ocean end of GG Park, basically sea level. Can’t say that I’ve noticed a difference. If 100 years means .39 ft, I can’t get excited.
Of course, I recommend NILS-AXEL MÖRNER’s research for sea level. (Yahoo his name. You will find lots of interest)
Here are a couple selections:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54461.htm
Don’t forget, in tidal areas and tributaries that you can have sediment deposits actually RAISING the land. This may be happening in your area. They have to dredge the channels to keep them open for shipping here also.
http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/bmvc/student/dredging/what_is_it.html
aw crap… someone already mentioned Venice.
Venice, Verdi, drowning.
Hey kuhnkat,
Moshpit and I live in SOMA. We should get together for a beer sometime.
However, I leave for Brazil in a week, and Mosh is always on the road for work–maybe in February when I get back.
Increased melting at lower elevations and increased snow accumulation at higher levels is expected in the early stages of global warming. The IPCC and climate/glaciological scientists have know this for a long time with a litany of papers.
The most recent years have been exceptionally warm in the Arctic http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/modelEt/time_series/work/tmp.4_observLOTI_12_1880_2010_1951_1980-0/map.gif with record melt (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070925160630.htm or EOS Sept 25, 2007 if you want the science paper). The study which triggered this thread is three years old and the data five years old.
David,
In 2007 the ice didn’t melt in the Arctic. It was blown out into the Atlantic where it met warm southern currents and melted. 2007 was an odd year due to an anomalous wind pattern. 2008 *should* have fared worse than 2007 if the melting was due to sea temperature or air temperature as we went in to 2008 with a record low amount of old ice. New ice melts faster because it has a higher salt content. 2008 finished with more ice than 2007. And 2009 will, I believe finish with more than 2008 did because we will go into the 2009 melt season with more old ice than we had in 2008.
The ice didn’t “melt” in 2007, it was blown out of the arctic by wind.
Take a look at the global sea ice anomaly chart on Cryosphere Today. 2008 has had more time with less anomaly than any year since 2003. Sea ice is recovering.
Jeff Alberts,
I have worked on computers since the base level mainframes in the Air Force in 1972. I assisted programmers who originated code similar to what raised issues for Y2K. Over the years I worked for Radiation Chemistry in Menlo Park and a couple of Financial Institutions along with a large Law Firm. In 1996 I went to work for Charles Schwab supporting programmers. I do not know what your background is, BUT, the financial field would have been an unmitigated disaster without the huge efforts we put in cleaning up volumes of legacy code. Virtually all of these companies used mainframes or Unix based systems that used that old legacy code.
Unlike Global Warming, Y2K was a somewhat well handled potential disaster. Global Warming has been a mismanaged MYTH!! Because so much work was put into PREVENTING the potential Y2K disaster does not in any way mean that it would not have been one if ignored.
selamat tahun baru 2009M
jeez,
my e-mail is with YAHOO. Just add my nickname.
David,
apparently you have missed the research that has found the “galloping glaciers” have all slowed from their galloping max, some back to “normal”. You have also missed the research that found little correlation with meltwater adding to the speed of glaciers or the study that decided the galloping glacier on the north eastern end of Greenland was probably caused by vulcanism. Check out the 1979 thru 2008 Cryosphere pictures of Greenland. It shows beautiful “wakes” where apparently warmer water is keeping the sea ice melted with a termination at the glacier area.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=30&fy=1979&sm=07&sd=30&sy=2008
Maybe it is just warm water from regular currents, but, it sure looks to originate from the glacier area.
I just don’t understand warmers. Iceland is one of the most active areas in the world. A string of volcanoes which have erupted in the last thirty years were found under the arctic ocean. Greenland has other areas of volcanism besides under this particular glacier, yet, you think all melting is due to increased AIR and WATER temps based on GG feedbacks. What about all the carbon and other dark aerosols that increase melt on glaciers worldwide. Now THAT is anthropogenic ice melt.
For that matter, based on reports from NASA, most of the “melt” of the arctic ice happens by winds BLOWING the ice into currents that take it out of the arctic where it melts!!!! Doesn’t take elevated temps for that to happen and the decreased albedo can raise the temps.
NASA reported early this year that the wind patterns had changed back to premelt patterns. May be why all that new ise didn’t all “melt” this summer!!
It wasn’t blown where it could!!
Basically, theory is all fine and good until actual observations show that what you THOUGHT was happening ISN’T!!
Oh, by the way, you said:
“Increased melting at lower elevations and increased snow accumulation at higher levels is expected in the early stages of global warming.”
That is also normal weather variation!!!
Basically you can not point to ANYTHING that isn’t within normal weather variation, just like I can’t point to ANYTHING that isn’t “CONSISTENT” with the models!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Crosspatch, maybe the Canadians and Alaskans need to emulate Russia:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17518
those underground cities may not be JUST for nuclear war survivability. They are apparently still using and expanding them at enormous costs. Makes me wonder whether they are fully self supporting yet?!?!?!
kuhnkat (22:13:46) :
Add to your observation the 30 day animation from
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ where the amoeba of ice recoils off Iceland at some point
and the anomaly plot loop from
(http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/)
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom_loop.gif
where one sees an isolated hot spot appearing between iceland and greenland and the volcanic activity view is on the table.
The only way I could mathematically see a hots pot developing between the islands from a storm front would be if a type of focusing around iceland were possible, lower temperatures coming from right and left and adding up in the middle.
“RAPID MELTING OF THE GREENLAND AND ANTARCTIC ICE SHEETS IS IMPOSSIBLE!”
I can across this article by Kurzmeldungen Klima.
http://hallolinden-db.de/baseportal?htx=/hallolinden-db.de/Klima/Klima&cmd=list&range=0,100&Datum==*&cmd=all&Id
I hope works
The link didn’t work.
Title THE GREENLAND-ANTARCTICA MELTING PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST
date 01.11.07
click on link. go to page 901and scroll down to 01.11.07
New link
http//hallolinden-db.de/baseportal?htx=/hallolinden-db.de/Klima&cmd=list&range=900,100&Datum==*&cmd=
again, I hope it works
Graeme Rodaughan (15:29:02):
IMHO The underlying problem is “Fear of Powerlessness and Insignificance”.
I agree totally, and the fear is understandable. But it is the response of many current “Environmentalists” which is indeed pathological: to necessarily involve the rest of us in their grand neurotic schemes of personal salvation, also in spite of the deleterious side-effects of those schemes. Imo, from one point of view they seem to have externalized what would otherwise be only a personal obsessive-compulsive disorder based upon an otherwise understandable fear, such that everyone else simply must be incorporated into it, quasi-religiously – or else!
Thanks kuhnkat. Again, excellent reading. The table showing vertical land motion is striking, especially for Sausalito. Also, after reading the dredging link, and seeing how much sediment enters the Bay each year, it’s not difficult for me to believe that my eyeballing of the wading bird habitat is indeed correct. Either vertical uplift of the East Bay shoreline, or added sediment into the mudflats, coupled with low single digit inches in sea level rise over the past 20 years tells me my eyes and memory were not deceiving me.
This ecosystem could be the poster child for “act locally, think globally”, i.e. fix any natural climate change issue of the ecosysytem by fixing it, as opposed to participating in a bogus movement that will fail to legislate against some insignificant molecules floating around above it.