NASA video tour of the Cryosphere 2009

WUWT commenter Ray tips us to a new video from NASA “The Tour of the Cryosphere 2009”. With all the interest in sea ice right now, it seems like a good item to review.

LIMA image of Antarctica

The new version of "A Tour of the Cryosphere" features the world’s highest-resolution map of the icy continent, from the NASA-USGS Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica (LIMA) project. Credit: NASA/USGS - click for a larger image

I found one thing about it really interesting though, the zoom in of the Larsen B ice shelf saying: “After twelve thousand years, the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed in just five weeks.”. While they didn’t say directly that it was attributable to “global warming”, many others have said so. Watch how that melt pool continues through the animation of sea ice growth as refreeze occurs. That’s a hint. There’s quite a number of volcanic peaks in the area, as listed here. Here’s a ground pix from the scene. and some BAS research that found some unexpected things. More on that another time.

From NASA News

Back in 2002, NASA created a film using satellite data that took viewers on a tour of Earth’s frozen regions. This year, NASA visualizers are taking viewers on a return trip to see how things have changed over the years.

“The Tour of the Cryosphere 2009” combines satellite imagery and state-of-the-art computer animation software to create a fact-filled and visually stunning tour that shows viewers the icy reaches of Antarctica, the glacier-pocked regions along the Andes Mountains, the winter snows of the American West, the drifting expanse of polar sea ice, and the shrinking Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland.

However, viewers who saw the original will notice differences in the new version, also created by the Scientific Visualization Studio (SVS) at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. The new “Tour of the Cryosphere” video can be seen and downloaded from the Scientific Visualization Studio’s Web site.

“What we did was incorporate more recent data and kept all scenes from the original that were dramatic and interesting,” said film director and editor Horace Mitchell, who began updating the animation seven months ago, with help from visualizers Alex Kekesi and Cindy Starr. “The biggest change is that the entire film is in high definition.”

Another significant difference is evident as soon as the 5-minute animation opens. At the request of Earth scientists, who thought the film could be improved by a more realistic rendering of Antarctica, the team replaced the original imagery provided by Canada’s RADARSAT with the Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica (LIMA). Created from more than 1,000 high-resolution Landsat 7 scenes, the LIMA dataset seamlessly shows the entire continent in unprecedented and realistic detail.

Watch the YouTube Video:

HiDef › View video (30 Mb mov)

As the updated film takes viewers northward from Antarctica, the film treats viewers to the precise locations of glaciers scattered along the Andes Mountains in South America. The locations literally pop as the film continues its grand tour toward the planet’s northern climes.

After a quick tour of snowfall in the American West and its impact on vegetation in 2002 and 2003, the film moves across Canada and Alaska to show more recent satellite data of annual snow and ice overlaying these regions. From there, viewers travel to Earth’s North Pole where they see the monthly average concentration of Arctic sea ice in 2009.

To help drive home the point that minimum sea ice levels have declined dramatically since 1979, the SVS team inserted a chart that tracks the levels of minimum ice cover, which typically occurs in September.

The animation then moves from Arctic sea ice to Greenland. More recent data now are used to show changes in the Jakobshavn glacier, which receded only slightly from 1942 to 2001. Beginning in 2002, the rate of ice loss jumped dramatically. The film shows the continued rates of recession over the past four years.

The animation shows the world in a single “shot” — uninterrupted by cuts or scene changes, a technique that conveys the interconnectedness of the cryosphere and the reason scientists gather satellite data to monitor changes in the first place.

The film gives anyone who watches it a wealth of data collected from satellite observations, showing in detail the impact that recent changes are making on the planet, he said.

“We’re trying to tell NASA’s story with Hollywood’s tools,” Mitchell said.

==================================

Here is the transcript from NASA:

“A Tour of the Cryosphere 2009” Transcript

Though cold and often remote, the icy reaches of the Arctic, Antarctic, and other frozen

places affect the lives of everyone on Earth.

We start our tour in Antarctica. Where they meet the sea, mountains of ice crack and

crumble. The resulting icebergs can float for years. Ice shelves surround half the

continent. They slow the relentless march of ice streams and glaciers like dams hold

back rivers. But the region is changing. As temperatures increase, we see a growing

number of melt ponds. As this heavy melt water forces its way into cracks, ice shelves

weaken and can ultimately collapse. After twelve thousand years, the Larsen B ice

shelf collapsed in just five weeks.

Offshore, sea ice forms when the surface of the ocean freezes, pushing salt out of the

ice. The cold salty surface water starts to sink, pumping deeper water out of the way,

powering global ocean circulation. These currents influence climate worldwide.

Most ice exists in the cold polar regions, but we see glaciers like these in the Andes all

over the world. Most are shrinking.

Here in North America, millions of people experience the cryosphere every year.

Eastward moving storms deposit snow like thick paint brushes. Mountain snow packs

store water. Snow melt provides three-quarters of the water resources used in the

American west. Substantial winter snows produced a green Colorado in 2003, but

dryer conditions the previous year limited vegetation growth and increased the risk of

fires.

In the Rocky Mountains, there are patches of frozen ground called permafrost that

never thaw. These regions are unusual in the mid-latitudes. But farther north,

permafrost is more widespread and continuous, covering nearly a fifth of the land

surface in the Northern Hemisphere.

Sea ice varies from season to season and from year to year. Data show that Arctic sea

ice has shrunk dramatically in the last few decades. The effects could be profound.

As polar ice decreases, more open water could promote greater heating. More heating

could lead to faster melting, reinforcing the cycle. If this trend continues, the Arctic

Ocean could be ice-free in the summer by the end of the century.

These changes in ice cover are not limited to oceans. Greenland’s ice sheet contains

nearly ten percent of the Earth’s glacial ice. Glaciers in western Greenland produce

most of the icebergs in the North Atlantic. After decades of stability, Greenland’s

Jakobshavn ice stream, one of the fastest flowing glaciers in the world, has changed

dramatically. The ice has thinned, and the front retreated significantly. Between 1997

and 2003, the glacier’s flow rate nearly doubled to five feet an hour.

These are just some of the cryospheric processes that NASA satellites observe from

space. Continued observation provides a critical global perspective, as our home

planet continues to change – day to day, year to year, and further into the future.

Share

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Matt in Wyoming

I watched it and it seems to illustrate just how insignificant the collapsing Ice shelf is relative to the whole of Antarctica. Plus the Glacier they highlighted on greenland, pretty small and insignificant when compared to the rest of the Ice.

Tom Wagner of NASA went on CNN last week to introduce NASA’s new cryosphere video and mislead the public about the state of Earth’s ice:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/09/03/nasa.coolest.earth.video.cnn?iref=videosearch
Tom disingenuously highlights that an iceberg broke off Ross Ice Shelf a few years ago and that the Larson Ice Shelf “collapsed catastrophically”, insinuating that Antarctica is falling apart, when in reality Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is currently almost a million sq km above the historical average:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Steven Kopits

Beautiful video.

RW

You think that a volcano melted the Larsen B ice shelf? Well, let’s for the moment ignore the fact that the volcano you link to has never been observed to erupt. Let’s assume that it in fact underwent a giant volcanic eruption, equivalent in size to that of Krakatoa in 1883. That released something like 1e18J. Now let’s assume that all of that energy was converted with 100% efficiency into melting ice. The latent heat of fusion of ice is 333.6 J/g. So, that could have melted 3e15 g of ice. That’s 3 billion tonnes. The density of ice is about 1 tonne/cubic metre, so the volume of ice melted would then be 3 billion cubic metres, or 3 cubic kilometres.
Questions for you to answer: 1. what was the volume of the Larsen B ice shelf? 2. Is it plausible that volcanic activity played any significant role in its demise?
REPLY: Krakatoa? Oh, please. It doesn’t have to erupt, and it doesn’t need to be Krakatoa sized, only produce sustained heat that will dissipate into the surrounding waters. And given that there are 16 Nunataks in the Larsen shelf region, plus who knows how many more undiscovered submarine peaks, it is quite clear that there is quite a bit of geothermal activity in the region. An unstable ice shelf on top of a known geothermally active area would seem to have a plausible connection to getting heat from it.
For example, on the other side of the peninsula we have Deception Island. WUWT’s moderator Charles has first hand experience with this:

Deception Island is a beautiful place. I’ve been there. Ready to eat boiled shrimp sometimes wash up on the shore. ~ charles the moderator

In 1921 the sea boiled:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Animal-Life-in-Volcanic-Antarctica&id=737772
Deception Island is mostly ice free, and seals come to warm themselves on the geothermally heated sands. No “Krakatoa boom” needed.
http://www.air-and-space.com/200101%20Antarctica/25%20Deception%20Islanda.htm
Further, if you’d bothered to read my links, you’d see that there has been some evidence for small eruptions in the Seal Nunatak group.
From http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1900-05=

The Seal Nunataks are a group of 16 nunataks emerging from the Larsen Ice Shelf east of Graham Land Peninsula. The Seal Nunataks have been described as separate volcanic vents or remnants of a large shield volcano. Fumarolic activity was reported from Murdoch and Dallman cones in 1982, and fresh-looking pyroclastics and a lava flow at Dallman (not observed in 1979) were seen on the ice surface three years later (González-Ferrán 1983). Fumarolic activity was observed at Christensen in 1893, and Lindenberg was observed in eruption in 1893. Baker (1968) saw cinders on the ice surface, suggesting a 20th-century eruption. A 1988 British expedition noted that tephra away from nunataks was found only in ice-cored moraines, suggesting a glacial rather than pyroclastic origin. They noted no fumarolic activity, although water vapor resulting from radiant heating of ice-cored moraines was observed.

So there’s ample evidence to suggest that the geothermal processes that created the Antarctic peninsula remain active and release heat into the surrounding waters. Larsen B ice may very well have had some geothermal influence. You don’t need an active eruption, and since the sea floor is not well explored there you can’t be sure what is there. I find it strange in the NASA video using sat imagery that the sea refroze everywhere but there. Explain that.
The rest of Antarctica isn’t being broadly affected by ice melt, just a few places, and those are a tiny percentage of the total ice mass. Overall Antarctic ice trend is up. The places that are affected seem to be in geothermally active areas. Plus the whole ice shelf doesn’t have to be melted, but in areas where geothermal might create voids, the ice can weaken and break up from wind and tide forces alone.
There’s some sat imagery of Antarctica that I’ll have to dig up that shows some melt pools in the middle of ice shelves.
“RW” I see you are still afraid to put your opinion to your name. Man up. – Anthony

H.R.

I watched it with the sound off. Neato video!

TonyS

Newscientist – World’s climate could cool first, warm later
Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world’s top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.
“People will say this is global warming disappearing,” he told more than 1500 of the world’s top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN’s World Climate Conference.
“I am not one of the sceptics,” insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. “However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Keith Minto

Graphics are spectacular but 43 seconds in the voice over proclaims “ice shelves surround 1/2 the Continent, they slow the relentless march of ice streams and glaciers like dams hold back rivers”. Do they ?,ice shelves are floating and have intertia because of their size,but how responsible are they for slowing glacial movement ?

vg

All I know its about 12 degrees in Asuncion and 8 in Buenos Aires very cold for this time of the year but definitely within normal 10-20 year weather data…

vg

Also re ice data I still think NH ice will go OVER 2005 level just look at this
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

David in Davis

Hmmm, Nice video. I wonder though. Why now? It’s been seven years since the first one. The data shown for the retreating Greenland glacier ends at 2003. They say that “most” glaciers are retreating, but I don’t see any ones that aren’t in the video or explanation of why some are and others aren’t. Interesting.
Are there any important issues coming up in the Senate? Any make or break world government climate conferences pending? Hmmm, I wonder.

hunter

They are so busy parsing dates and data that it only leads one to believe they are trying to make people less informed, not more.

Mitchel44

“Ice shelves surround half the continent. They slow the relentless march of ice streams and glaciers like dams hold back rivers.”
Could someone point me at a paper explaining how that works?
Thanks

There are over 160,000 glaciers on the planet, making the cherry-picking of receding glaciers about the easiest thing in the world to do. Just pick a few that are receding.
Glaciers advanced and retreated at the same rate both before and after the Industrial Revolution, therefore CO2 is eliminated as a cause: click.
[Source. Scroll down 20% of the page to “Glaciers.”]

rbateman

And what of the volacanoes hidden under the ice?
What forms the Greenland basin, could it be a ring of fire, once activated, will melt glaciers at the rim?

There is a wealth of information on all aspects of the global warming scam here. Great site to bookmark, it’s maintained by Popular Technology magazine. Some articles on glaciers:
Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather (McClatchy)
Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years (DailyTech)
Glaciers in Norway Growing Again (DailyTech)
Global warming boost to glaciers (BBC)
Melting glacier ‘false alarm’ (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Recent Glacier Advances in Norway and New Zealand (Physical Geography)
Science debunks Glacier Park warming alarm (The Heartland Institute)
Study: Glacier melting can be variable (Breitbart)
Study Says Glaciers Formed During a Very Warm Period (The New York Times)
Warming Climate Can Support Glacial Ice: It Did In Much Warmer Times (Science Daily)
Growing – 50 Glaciers reverse the trend and grow in south New Zealand (Taipei Times)
Growing – Bolam Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (FOX News)
Growing – Briksdal Glacier, Norway’s glaciers growing at record pace (Agence-France Presse)
Growing – Dôme du Goûter Glacier, Permanent Ice Fields Are Resisting Global Warming (Science Daily)
Growing – Fox Glacier has been advancing since 1985 (Alpine Guides)
Growing – Franz Josef Glacier, A Glacier Grows, Undeterred by Heated Kyoto Debate (CNSNews)
Growing – Guyot Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (SitNews)
Growing – Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing … and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists (The Heartland Institute)
Growing – Hotlum Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (FOX News)
Growing – Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: Growing and Advancing in Spite of Global Climate Change (USGS)
Growing – Johns Hopkins Glacier is advancing and moving 3000 feet per year (Glacier Bay National Park)
Growing – Jostedalsbreen Glacier, Norway’s glaciers growing at record pace (Agence-France Presse)
Growing – Kolka Glacier is growing again (NTV, Russia)
Growing – Konwakiton Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (FOX News)
Growing – McGinnis Glacier, Alaska Range Glacier Surges (Science Daily)
Growing – Meares Glacier, an advancing glacier tearing up trees and rocks in its path as it grows (Alaska Tours)
Growing – Mont Blanc Glacier, Global warming makes Mont Blanc grow (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Growing – Mount St. Helens Glacier, Glacier Grows in Mount St. Helens’ Crater (FOX News)
Growing – Glacier resumes growing in Mount St. Helens crater (The Seattle Times)
Growing – Mud Creek Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (FOX News)
Growing – Nigardsbreen Glacier is growing by 25 to 50 meters per year (Jostedal Glacier National Park)
Growing – Perito Moreno Glacier, Defiant Argentine Glacier Thrives Despite Warming (Reuters)
Growing – Pio XI Glacier, The biggest glacier in South America keeps growing every year (Visit Chile)
Growing – Rockies: Colorado: 100 More Glaciers Are Discovered (The New York Times)
Growing – Trinity Glaciers, Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend (Science Daily)
Growing – Tsaa Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (SitNews)
Growing – Watkins Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (FOX News)
Growing – Whitney Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (FOX News)
Growing – Wintun Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (FOX News)
Growing – Yahtze Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (SitNews)

Mike Davis

The road to Copenhagen is paved with GCM and CGI fairy tales. Next week we should see “The Three Little Pigs”.

pwl

“To help drive home the point that minimum sea ice levels have declined dramatically since 1979, the SVS team inserted a chart that tracks the levels of minimum ice cover, which typically occurs in September.”
Has anyone yet vetted this chart? Where is the scientific references for it? Is this a propaganda video or a science video? If it’s a science video please NASA provide the references to support your claims. I’d also want to know which portions of the imagery are actual satellite photos which photos from which satellites on what dates and times. Which portions are animations not from actual science data?
Just my skeptical two cents worth.

Nogw

The same mantra on video. So global warmers keep on repeating the same lies.
Propaganda all over the world (at least in SA) of sources of drink water disappearing, etc,etc. are repeated once and again paid by a well known canadian bank, by governments of countries like Finland, by NGO´s like Oxfam (which, btw, opposes to any mining exploitation), etc,etc.
Beware, because….
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Nogw

It seems that the precondition to be hired by NASA is to bow and kneel before a real sized sculpture of His Most Exhalted Prophet Al (“el gordo”), the uncomparable liar, and submissively kiss his sacred feet.

INGSOC

I notice that they push out the “ice free arctic” to “the end of the century!” That should keep numerous research grants safe for generations! (Just don’t point out the earlier “settled” claims)

TerryBixler

Maybe NASA should concentrate on space as opposed to propaganda. I would be happy if our government dropped the AGW agenda and worried about continuing to be in space. But with budgets being wasted on AGW movies maybe there will be no money left for space exploration http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10347268-239.html. NASA propaganda studios may be all that is left, along with Jim’s math adjustment studio.

Ron de Haan

I really like the movie, but the comment and the graphs are drenched with AGW propaganda.
Unfortunately.

Tom P

Smokey,
Your link to the Popular Technology plot of recession of glaciers presents data from Johannes Hans Oerlemans, but completely misinterprets it. The original analysis, which takes into account the varying temperature response of different glaciers, is in Oerlmans’ 2005 paper, Science 308, 675-677.
The global temperature profile derived from the recession of the glaciers is in very good agreement with the instrumental record. There is no contradiction between the historical records of glacier length and the warming seen over the last 150 years. Apparently whoever put together that Popular Technology site (there is no magazine, just a right-wing blog) didn’t care to find and read the original reference.

Perhaps someone with the proper skills, could take that video, edit out the sound track, and add one that a realist could support. And add the 2009
data point to the graph, which should be available soon. Might even add in the current JAXA graph (gotta love that – couldn’t have hoped for much better).
REPLY: …and since it is in the public domain, NASA would not have any copyright issues with it.
Anthony

Posting the “adjusted” video to U-Tube would be cool.

Tom P,
You are correct, I was mistaken thinking for some reason that Popular Technology was a magazine. Maybe I was thinking of Popular Mechanics — another “right wing” source of good information.
But you’ll have to do a lot more convincing to show that out of the 160,000 glaciers on Earth, the AGW believers aren’t cherry-picking only those that are receding.
For a part of the past century, the planet’s temperature rose a fraction of a degree C. It has since largely retraced its rise and isn’t much different now than it was thirty years ago. That fraction of a degree is not going to cause the planet’s glaciers to all start melting; most of them are already well below freezing. If the world’s glaciers were all melting it would be acknowledged by skeptical scientists [the only real scientists] everywhere.
I’ll have to accept your citation [not that I doubt it], having canceled my 20+ year subscription to Science a decade ago when they started to sound like Scientific American.
I posted 41 sources on glacier growth. So that’s one down, and forty articles to go. If you can credibly contradict even half of those reports, I’ll accept that the world’s glaciers are retreating.
Otherwise, stories about glaciers disappearing is simply cherry-picked AGW spin, and it adds no more to the debate than the bogus claims of unusual sea level rise, the disappearing ozone hole, the Maldives and Vanuatu drowning from global warming, disappearing global sea ice, and all the rest of the alarmist scare stories that never pan out.

rbateman

Nobody in thier right minds would pick on Mt. Shasta’s glaciers. I-5 runs right by it, and as such remains totally in the public view.
But, it must be something else, like increased rainfall.
There’s a really bad problem for AGW there, as they are constnatly screaming drought. You cannot have the glaciers growing on Mt. Shasta due to increased precipitation when the largest reservior in California is heralded as primarily rainfall watershed, yet at the same instant have a drought in that rain watershed.
The glaciers on Mt. Shasta are admitted to be growing in a declared California drought, Mt. Shasta watershed included, both the lake and the mountain are plainly visible from a major Interstate Highway, and it is a huge embarassment for AGW.

Tom P

Smokey,
Do you now have doubts about the very data you first brought to our attention? Oerlman collated all the historical glacier records available, some 167 datasets. There was no cherry picking – some of the glaciers are indeed growing:
“Records of glacier length were compiled from various sources, building on a data set from an earlier study (14). It was possible to extend the set of 48 records to a set of 169 records from glaciers found at widely differing latitudes and elevations. The core of the data set comes from the files of the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Z” rich (15). Records were then included from glaciers in Patagonia (16), southern Greenland (17), Iceland (18), and Jan Mayen (19). Additional information was taken from the Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World (20) and from reports of the Swiss Academy of Sciences (21). The character of the records differs widely (Fig. 1). Some start in 1600 and have typically 10 data points until 1900 and more afterward. Other records start around 1900 but have annual resolution throughout. The longest record is that of the Untere Grindelwaldgletscher, which starts in 1534 (22).”
In comparison you now want to put against Oerlman’s full historical dataset a mixture of news reports and websites which, although I have no reason to doubt their individual accuracy, represent just a snapshot of what is indeed cherry-picked data from a fraction of the glaciers that are currently growing.
You don’t need to take my word for it – just read the (repeated) link you give to the same Fox News article:
“MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. — Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only long-established glaciers in the lower 48 states that are growing.”
“When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking,” said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta’s glaciers. “These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean.”

rbateman

Check out Nova tonight. They are investigating a super volcano in N. Greenland. Hmmmm……..less than 1000 miles from the N. Pole.

Frank K.

Smokey (19:32:57) :
Smokey, here is the Oerlemans paper:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/files/oerlemans_glacier_length.pdf
Note the use of first order ordinary differential equations with tunable constants. Just guess c and tau and you’re in business.
Also note the magnitude of the uncertainty and how the uncertainty was obtained.
However, I find little evidence here that…
“The global temperature profile derived from the recession of the glaciers is in very good agreement with the instrumental record.”
Maybe there are other papers.
I must, however, applaud Dr. Oerlemans for clearly documenting what equations he’s using, unlike some notorious NASA AOGCM’s which are currently being run on brand new, taxpayer-funded multiprocessing computers…

I am nowhere near to being a scientist. I am in complete awe of most of you here who can remember all of the math and understand all of the formulas. I go by observations that my grandfather taught me as far as what to look for in plants and animals and he was the one to tell me that looking at the rocks was the way to know what happened in the past.
I wish I could remember the documentary, it was several years ago, either History, Discovery or A&E, but it was about some glacier near the tip of South America that had broken off and it was captured on camera.
I distinctly remember seeing black, and I mean BLACK like charcoal, way deep inside that ice as it fell off into the water. That’s when I started looking for volcanoes and boy I am learning a lot.
But I also know that it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that when you heat up an ice cube on a slightly warm stove burner…it puddles really quite efficiently.

Pamela Gray

I would like to see a comparison of ice thickness between last year and this year. I am thinking there will be an impressive change in the Arctic Basin due to compaction from wind driven ice jamming against Canadian coastlines. Remember the sliver of thick ice from last year? Tis more than a sliver now. Multi-year ice appears to develop from two sources:
1. relatively stationary ice that adds layers every winter due to low summer melt
2. jammed and jumbled baby ice building up against coastal areas in a single year due to wind changes that blows ice into and around the Arctic basin instead of out Fram Strait.

Justin Sane

At least they didn’t mention Mount Kilimanjaro, and they said that the arctic may be ice free by the end of the century, not 4 years as I think Al Gore said.

Tom P

Smokey,
You might want to reconsider your views on Popular Mechanics. Their recent report on Climate Change Solutions: Live From World Science Fair described “what progress has been made toward thwarting global warming”, hardly a position you might identify with.
First it was Scientific American, then Science, Fox News and now even Popular Mechanics that are not really telling it how you would like it to be told. Probably best to avoid all four if you want your beliefs to remain unchallenged.

Pamela Gray

Hope this works. This is not a comparison of thickness. It is a comparison of ice concentration. But an idea of ice thickness differences can be imagined.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=07&fy=2008&sm=09&sd=07&sy=2009

Pamela Gray

It will be interesting when buoys are back in anchored positions to measure ice thickness.

Patrick Davis

“RW (16:44:07) :”
Ouestion for you. Have you been to Hot Water Beach in New Zeland? Ok, New Zealand isn’t under ice, but the principal is the same. Water is heated by geothermal activity and is forced, hot, to the surface. In fact it is so hot you cannot enter it unless you also allow cold sea water to mix with it.

Tom P

Frank K.
“However, I find little evidence here that…
“The global temperature profile derived from the recession of the glaciers is in very good agreement with the instrumental record.””
Did you look at a comparison? Here is an overlay of Oerlemans’ glacier-derived temperature (thick red line) and the HadCRUT instrumental record:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1994/glaciervsinstrumental.png
I’d say that was at the least very good agreement, justifying the basis of each of these two independent datasets.

AnonyMoose

The locations literally pop as the film continues its grand tour toward the planet’s northern climes.

Literally? They actually blew up real glaciers? So that’s where NASA’s budget has been going!

David Ball

Anthony = windsheild, RW= bug, …… 8^]

kuhnkat

Tom P,
“They are the only long-established glaciers in the lower 48 states that are growing.”
“When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking,”
Nothing like unsupported verbiage huh??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There are NO (none, nada, zip) comprehensive studies of glaciers worldwide. They are as sloppily covered as the land surface temperature. There are now both Kilimanjaro and Tibetan glaciers which have had detailed studies leading to the conclusion that AGW/Warming is NOT affecting their status and that precipitation is the primary driver. Other glaciers are in the process of being declared “AGW Free Zones!!” Most of the Greenland galloping glaciers have slowed back down and have been declared to be non-exceptional by glacier experts.

Tom P (20:06:11),
I always have doubts… unlike True AGW Believers.
So let’s cut to the chase, shall we?
Is it your contention that the receding glaciers identified are receding due specifically to global warming? Caused by carbon dioxide??
If so, say it.
In fact, it is precipitation — or lack of precipitation — at higher altitudes that causes glaciers to advance or retreat. In other words, weather. Any meteorologist can inform you about that.
So, to get right down to it: are you saying that an increase in CO2 is the cause of glaciers retreating? “Yes” or “No” will do.

You know…I’m one of those types that loves to look at maps. I’m something of a collector. When I read an article that says that something was found “near” a particular spot I become highly dissatisfied at the lack of an exact location.
When I followed the links to the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory so that I could read the expedition reports I found exact coordinates for each entry….except for the entry regarding the discovery of the volcano.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news/reports/2004/CORC04/05_10_04.htm
I want coordinates for this volcano.
*sigh* More digging…

kuhnkat

RBateman,
from a lifetime California resident, we are NOT in a DROUGHT!! We ARE using more water than we have available.
Rainfall below average is not exactly the definition of a drought!!!!
We DO need to decide whether we are going to build desalination or recycled sewage plants, continuously ration water, limit growth drastically, or all of the above.

Ray

Thanks Anthony for putting that video/story up.
It’s funny how they skipped all those glaciers along the Ring of Fire that sit on top of volcanoes… those could go anytime due only to increased volcanic activity or as we have seen with Kilimanjaro due to a reduced evaporation from forests around because of increased human occupation and deforestation.
When they are only down to only two cases where glaciers or ice shelves melted or broke down (probably from natural processes), they should admit they are wrong about the whole CO2=AGW thing… give it up Al.

Ray

“We’re trying to tell NASA’s story with Hollywood’s tools,”
Shouldn’t it be instead: We’re trying to tell Hollywood’s stories with NASA’s tools?

Roger Knights

Regarding glacial retreat, see section 2.2 (pages 28-32), “Glaciers,” of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s paper, “Two Natural Components of Recent Climate Change,” here (as a 50-Mb PDF):
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php
He writes, on p. 28: ” Figures 9a-9f show records of glaciers in Alaska, New Zealand, the European Alps, and the Himalayas, respectively, which have been receding from the time of the earliest records, about 1800. … It is clear that the retreat is not a phenomenon that began only in recent years, or after CO2 emission increase in1946.”
And on page 32: ” Altogether, long-term glacier data presented here show that glaciers advanced from about 1400 and began to retreat after 1800 (cf. Akasofu, 2008). These facts confirm that the Earth experienced the LIA.”

rbateman

“MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. — Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only long-established glaciers in the lower 48 states that are growing.”
“When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking,” said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta’s glaciers. “These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean.”
And the rain watershed appears to be in the grips of low-precipitation patterns, with Mt. Shasta towering over it, in mocking silence as it’s glaciers grow in total defiance of computer models.
You cannot have it both ways.
The same moisture stream hits both the watershed and the volcano, or they miss it. There is no magical moisture stream designed for the volcano only.
Go ahead, take a drive on I-5 up there when a storm hits. It can rain so hard you can’t see where you are going. Special, eh?

rbateman (20:06:50) :
Check out Nova tonight. They are investigating a super volcano in N. Greenland. Hmmmm……..less than 1000 miles from the N. Pole.

But the N. Pole is headed to Siberia at 40 km / year average or so… Though some days it can jump around 80 km wandering round its present ‘location’.
So, any more “stable” landmark for the volcano? Name? Link?

rbateman (20:06:50) :
Check out Nova tonight. They are investigating a super volcano in N. Greenland. Hmmmm……..less than 1000 miles from the N. Pole.

But the N. Pole is headed to Siberia at 40 km / year average or so… Though some days it can jump around 80 km wandering round its present ‘location’:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm
So, any more “stable” landmark for the volcano? Name? Link?