UK Glaciations – Source: Western Washington University
Just prior to Copenhagen, there was a flurry of news stories about Greenland melt accelerating and sea level rising up to seven meters, like this one from Spiegel.
11/13/2009
A Warming Arctic
Greenland’s Ice Sheet Melting Faster than Ever
By Christoph Seidler
Everyone knows that the ice sheet on Greenland is melting. But new research shows it is disappearing much faster than previously thought. The findings could mean that ocean levels are also rising more quickly.
As a corollary, some climatologists have speculated (as recently as this week) that cold water pouring into the North Atlantic from Greenland melt will cause the Gulf Stream to collapse and an ice age to set in across Europe.
‘Glaciers on Snowdon’ warning by climate expert
Jan 12 2010 by Rhodri Clark, Western Mail
THIS winter’s prolonged cold spell could be a taste of things to come for Wales – with glaciers a possibility within 40 years. That’s the chilly message from a leading Welsh climate expert who has warned that global warming could paradoxically trigger a collapse in temperatures in western Europe.
It is simple enough to show how unlikely these claims are. If the Greenland ice sheet was melting at an accelerated rate and pouring cold water into the North Atlantic, we would necessarily see two side effects:
- Increased rate of sea level rise
- Cold water around Greenland
In fact, we see neither of these things happening. Over the last four years sea level rise has slowed, and over the last fifteen years sea level has been rising at an average of only 32cm per century. This is an order of magnitude less than the predictions of alarmists.
Source: University of Colorado Sea Level Lab
The Spiegel article further claims:
In the period between 2000 and 2008, the dwindling glaciers have been responsible for the sea level rising by an average of about half a millimeter per year. However, during the last three years of observation, the value rose to 0.75 millimeters per year. According to the researchers, these results could indicate that the sheet of ice is melting at an accelerated rate.
These claims are not supported by the University of Colorado data. Since 1900, sea level has been rising at about 20cm per century, and hasn’t changed much recently – as seen in the graph below.
Is there evidence of cold water around Greenland pouring into the North Atlantic? No, quite the opposite. Sea Surface Temperatures around Greenland have running consistently above normal. Below are SST maps for the end of July (peak melt season) for 2007-2009. Maps from Unisys.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-070729.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-080727.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-090726.gif
How about winter? Same story – warmer than normal temperatures around Greenland at the end of December 2007-2009.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-071230.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-081228.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-091227.gif
Even if all this speculation was true and the Gulf Stream did slow down and colder weather started to set in – Greenland would stop melting, causing the whole process to reverse. In other words, don’t book any glacier climbing vacations in Wales quite yet.
h/t to Steve Goddard
Ian L. McQueen (14:25:27) :
“Did the sea sink or did the land rise?”
_______________________
Yes? Maybe?
If you haven’t already looked at this graph or one similiar check out temperature for the time. Colder = lower sealevel. Warmer = higher sealevel. Looks warmer and therefore higher sealevel to me.
Fantastic read about how a speculative phone conversation in 1999 became IPCC ‘fact’!
This ought to be put on this site as a topic :
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
This link was previously posted on this thread – recommended reading.
Ref – Pascvaks (15:56:56) :
Ian L. McQueen (14:25:27) :
“Did the sea sink or did the land rise?”
_______________________
Sorry! Forgot to give the link:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wuwt_icecoreanim_image51.png
Salinity data ?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/salinity.html
I recall from my postgrad research into the end of the last glaciation (admittedly in the 90’s) that rapid post glacial warming from the Bølling/Allerød interstadial caused rapidly melting ice and influx of cold freshwater (primarily from the Gulf of St Lawrence) into the North Atlantic – the theory was that this “pushed” the gulf stream south to France/Spain, disrupting the warm water/cooling circulation for the Arctic/North Atlantic which allowed a stable “cold” high pressure to form over the ocean, drawing the cold air down from the Arctic. I think re-glaciation (Younger Dryas stadial) happened pretty quickly – 50 years or some such (temp ranges from mollusc and beetle habitat studies).
We don’t have the build up of ice in North America and on the Laurentitde ice sheets to cause the same effect today, but who knows – if we happen enter a global cooling phase just after the ice melting? its still interesting to note that the effects of warming aren’t always more warming..
oh, and I just saw David Williams comments on the same thing..
This is a good explanation of Gulf Stream’s impact. Another case in point is Murmansk (68:58 N). It is almost 10 degrees lat higher than St. Petersburg (59:57 N). Yet, Murmansk’s seaport is open to traffic all year round while St. Petersburg’s is closed to navigation in winters since the sea freezes up. Gulf Stream has no effect on temperatures in Baltic Sea.
Vancouver and Seattle at latitudes 49.25 N and 47.76 N respectively are not good candidates for comparison.
DirkH (11:56:23) :
“Max Hugoson (11:00:37) :
A marvelous computer scientist at my church, clued me into his observation that the DOCKS at Pompei are located about 3/4 mile INLAND from the current Medditeranian shore. The elevation difference is about 50′.”
They have a volcano there. Well in fact lots of them if you look around: Vesuv, Aetna, Stromboli. I would guess that there is a strong likelihood that the land has risen due to a refilling magma chamber.
Try this: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070223_ground_uplift.html
Sea level looks pretty stable from here.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf
Your questions are based upon some misinformation. The land did not “elevate 50′ in 2000 years”, and the sea level did not fall 50′ in 2000 years. Instead, there were other activities going on.
The city of Pompeii was built upon a plateau and ridge extending as a spur of volcanic lava flow from Mount Vesuvius during earlier volcanic eruptions. The Sarno (Sarnus) River flowed along the base of this plateau and ridge at a lower elevation, and the mouth of the river may have originally terminated in the sea as a braided marsh about a kilometer to the west of Pompeii’s walls.
The 50 foot elevation you commented about was inside Pompeii’s walls and higher on the volcanic ridge overlooking the harbor at sea level. The city’ was built upon the slopes of the ridge and plateau with differences in elevation. To reach the harbor, you had to leave one of Pompeii’s gates, Marina Gate or Stabian Gate, descend in elevation to the quay built along the Sarnus River at the base of Pompeii’s walls, and walk some distance to the sea level harbor at Porto Ercolano. Today’s seacoast is now something more than 1km to the west of where the harbor used to be when Vesuvius buried Pompeii and its harbor in 79AD. In previous millenia, the seacoast was as much as 2km on the east side of Pompeii’s location.
The changes in location of the seacoast in the vicinity of Pompeii are due to multiple causes. First, the volcanic eruptions of Mount Vesuvius have been altering the areal extent and the elevations of the coastline over the most recent millenia. Secondly, the changes in topography wrought by Mount Vesuvius’ volcanic activities has altered the course, erosional activities, and depositional patterns of the Sarno (Sarnus) River with respect to the seacoast. Thirdly, the area has been subject to about 30 meters of tectonic uplift of the terrain during the past 6,000 years as the African Plate dived underneath the Eurasian Plate, generated the volcanic eruptions of Mount Vesuvius overlying the plate boundaries, and contributed further uplift of the Alpine, Dalmatian, and other mountain ranges bordering the basin of the Mediterranean Sea. Fourthly, there has been some post-glaciation estatic uplift of the continents. Since the burial of Pompeii and its harbor in 79AD, there has probably been no more than about 10 meters or less of uplift for Pompeii’s harbor. As the uplift of the terrain increased, so too has the mean sea level of the Mediterranean Sea been increasing in the past two millenia. What we see today is the balance of all these effects.
No docks at Pompei–too far inland. However, at Herculaneum, the old seashore has been excavated, complete with docks and boats and boat houses and the impressions of many people who tried to escape to the sea when the pyroclastic flows came down from Vesuvio. If you have the chance, go see it–very impressive and more compact and better preserved than Pompei. The excavation is massive since Herculaneum was covered with a lot of tuffa. I don’t know the height exactly, but 50′ is in the ballpark. The land rose and was extended into the sea by the eruption. It’s not a good spot to measure ancient sea level.
Pompeii had one of the most important and thriving ports and harbors in the region in 79AD at the adjoining Porto Ercolano. Archaeologists are now in the very early stages of digging into the harbor area.
Fred (10:06:25) :
“I thought everyone knew Global Warming causes Global Cooling?”
Actually, it appears that a few cold winters around 1975-1982 “caused” the global “warming” we hear so much about from the warmists. Warmer winters (but not unusually warm) since 1998 give an apparent upward trend to average temperatures from 1975 to present.
I’ve been examining individual U.S. city temperature records, and the small cities show a consistent pattern.
see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-warming-from-co2.html
Well it’s starting by the look of it. There are a few stories lately about getting colder due to climate change, little ice ages, now Wales getting Glaciers. It’s almost in the same sense as Global warming changed to Climate change overnight and everyone didn’t bat an eye lid, all of a sudden people will forget that we were being told that the world was going to fry us to death, and be worried that we are going to freeze to death!
When will people wake up to this #$@ur momisugly$??
The ancient port at Ephesus (near Kusudasi, Turkey) is also well inland today.
Glaciers in Wales? That is a problem?
And how do they propose we get them to stop swallowing ice chunks? 😉
Hi all
As a complete layman – but a natural cynic on almost everything – I have been trying to follow and get up to speed on MMGW debate.
Looking at just one aspect of the debate, i.e. sea levels, surely increases or decreases in sea level must be a result of all manner of issues other than just melting ice caps?
In terms of effects likely to decrease sea levels then do these issues have a “material” effect?:
1. the amount of damming of rivers
2. the storage of water on land by humans (reservoirs, water heaters, header tanks in every new house, swimming pools, etc)
3. the pumping of sea water “underground” to force out the oil for driling
Then, on the other side:
1. over 100,000 ships have been launched in the last century. what is the total tonnage/displacement of the loaded ships sailing the seas and does this have a material affect?
2. Coastal erosion. from my geography O level, we were told that the sea wages a constant attack on all coastlines. Isn’t the effect of this to remove land from “above sea level” – to underneath it, thus increasing sea level? I remember being told, that given enough time, the effect of coastal erosion will eventually be to remove all “land” from the earth’s suface.
3. undersea volcanos. do the new volcanos have the effect of increasing sea levels?
Are any of these taken into account or are they not material?
Dave
sHx
“This is a good explanation of Gulf Stream’s impact. Another case in point is Murmansk (68:58 N). It is almost 10 degrees lat higher than St. Petersburg (59:57 N). Yet, Murmansk’s seaport is open to traffic all year round while St. Petersburg’s is closed to navigation in winters since the sea freezes up.”
Murmansk temps: Jan avg low = -13.8c; feb avg low = -13.4c
St. Petersburg: jan avg low = -8.8c; feb avg low = -8.8c
Thus St. Petersburg enjoys milder winters than Murmansk in complete contradiction to you claim.
sHx 17:40:51
The point I was making in my original comment was that when I was at school we were told that the Gulf stream controlled the weather in the British Isles, and that is still trotted out today as gospel like in the film the Day after tomorrow.
I have spent most of my life as a farmer and amateur sailor and I have always taken note of the position of the high pressure area over the Azores and the jet stream to tell me what the Summer or Winter were going to be like (not the met office).
When the Azores high sinks to the south, southern Britain has wet Summers/mild wet winters. When the high moves North of the Azores the jet steam moves over Scotland and they get wet Summers/mild winters and Southern Britain get nice dry warm weather.
In the recent cold spell in Northern Europe the Jet steam moved as far south as Spain allowing in Arctic air.
So it seems to me that the Main driver of the weather in Britain is the jet Stream not the Gulf stream but as I said in my first comment I am not saying it has no effect.
Not wishing to be pedantic but although the water is warm enough to stop sea water freezing at Murmansk it does not warm the air temperature the highest max. temp in January is -7C
No need to book a mountain-climbing tour. Just driving through the mountains provides recognizable signs (between speed cameras 🙂 ) that there was glacial activity; “not so long ago”.
My question about this is that if both the West and East Greenland currents are cold currents then why is the Eastern side of Greenland showing warmer temperatures. I know that the Irminger Current (Warm offshoot of the Gulf Stream) flows around the Western side of Iceland and thus modifies the weather there, but it doesn’t appear to have any influence on the Eastern side of the Greenland. The reason I’m wondering is because I’m wondering how this might affect the credibility of this product.
Now, the Southern Tip of Greenland is showing colder temperatures which I’m guessing is from the convergence of both the East and West Greenland Currents.
yonason (20:58:45) :
Sea level looks pretty stable from here.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf
That is a very interesting Link and so is this link http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60101/IDO60101.200809.pdf back to the original report which was last updated in 2008. It would be interesing to see it updated to 2010.
One of the items of most interest in Figure 11, MONTHLY MEAN SEA LEVELS is the amount of change over the years and the Rate of Change, especially during 1997.
What is also very obvious is that the Australian Government have the data to dispute the AGW claims about alarmingly rising sea levels currently being used and has chosen NOT to do so.
MELTING OF POLAR ICE CAP
The density of water at zero degrees centigrade is 0.9999 grams per cm. The density of ice at zero degree centigrade is 0.9150. In other words, 1 cc of ice weights only 0.91 gm and hence will displace only 0.915cc of water, when the ice is floating in water. When the ice float, almost the whole of body sinks below the surface of water, expect a small portion projecting above the surface. In the North Pole area, there is no land. The crust of the earth forms a huge bowl filled with seawater and a huge mass of ice floating in it just like an ice cube placed in a bowl of water. The volume of ice submerged below the ice may be almost 9 times more than the icecap which we observe above the surface of water. The molecules covering the underwater portion of the icecap absorb heat from the sea water in which it floats and melt into water. This is a continuous process happening round the clock, allover the year, irrespective of summer or winter. As I have explained in my booklet, the necessary energy is supplied by the earth itself. The role of the Sun which shines only for a limited period is too insignificant to have any impact on this process. As the density of water is more than that of ice, the volume of water generated by the melting of ice is less than that of water originally occupied by the ice block in the ratio 9999:9150. Therefore the sea level will actually come down because of the melting process. In practice, this may not happen because of the continuous deposition of snow in the polar region which will continuously push down the ice cap.
A lot has been talked about the rising of sea level because of Global warming. This is a misconception. In some places, the sea level goes up and in other places, it recedes. This phenomenon has been extensively discussed in Milner’s geography.
My contention can be tested by a simple experiment. Place ice cubes in a tumbler and fill it with water until the water overflows. Leave it until all the ice melts. Watch for any overflow of water during this process.
FOR BOOK global warming is a myth, contact: waterfriendkks@gmail.com
D. Patterson (22:22:25) :
GeneDoc (21:49:17) :
No docks at Pompei–too far inland.
Pompeii had one of the most important and thriving ports and harbors in the region in 79AD at the adjoining Porto Ercolano. Archaeologists are now in the very early stages of digging into the harbor area.
Ercolano=Herculaneum. I think of Ercolano as a separate town from Pompei, but they are certainly not too far from one another (15km). But the center of Pompei is well inland today. Sorry to make assumptions based on that and thanks for the correction. If Pompei had a harbor, Vesuvius filled it in (as it did at Ercolano). In any case, it doesn’t say much about sea level!
Ullapool, Scotland is at the same latitude as the central Hudson Bay, yet it has palm trees. This is because of the Gulf Stream.
You won’t find a lot of palm trees around the Hudson Bay.
Steve Goddard 06:52:08
The comparison of Hudson Bay and Ullapool is not a good one.
Ullapool has a maritime climate like much of northern Europe whereas Hudson Bay has a continental climate which is exacerbated by a very low salinity of the sea water due to low evaporation in the Summer and a large flow of fresh water from the numerous rivers flowing into it. In fact the average yearly temperature is -2C which is lower than other places of a similar latitude.
It is very difficult to separate the effects of the Maritime climate from the effect of the gulf stream so we should not assume that its because of the Gulf stream just because we have been told it is. I don’t