You may recall the bogus claim of “97% of Greenland Ice melted”, that was dialed back (REP’s last story on WUWT). Now there’s more of the same sort of stuff. See this PR, and note my bold for the money quote.
From the City College of New York
Greenland melting breaks record 4 weeks before season’s end
Melting over the Greenland ice sheet shattered the seasonal record on August 8 – a full four weeks before the close of the melting season, reports Marco Tedesco, assistant professor of Earth and atmospheric sciences at The City College of New York.
The melting season in Greenland usually lasts from June – when the first puddles of meltwater appear – to early-September, when temperatures cool. This year, cumulative melting in the first week in August had already exceeded the record of 2010, taken over a full season, according to Professor Tedesco’s ongoing analysis.
“With more yet to come in August, this year’s overall melting will fall way above the old records. That’s a goliath year – the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979,” said Professor Tedesco.
This spells a change for the face of southern Greenland, he added, with the ice sheet thinning at its edges and lakes on top of glaciers proliferating.
Professor Tedesco noted that these changes jibe with what most of the models predict – the difference is how quickly this seems to be happening.
To quantify the changes, he calculated the duration and extent of melting throughout the season across the whole ice sheet, using data collected by microwave satellite sensors.*
This ‘cumulative melting index’ can be seen as a measure of the ‘strength’ of the melting season: the higher the index, the more melting has occurred. (The index is defined as the number of days when melting occurs multiplied by the total area subject to melting.)
Dr. Thomas Mote, Professor of Geography at the University of Georgia and colleague of Professor Tedesco, confirmed that the cumulative melt in 2012 had surpassed that of 2010 using a similar analysis.
The August 8th record differs from NASA’s announcement of unprecedented melting in mid-July, reported by Professor Tedesco and other researchers. Then, they found that the Greenland ice sheet had melted over 97 percent of its surface.
“That event was exceptional in the sense that it was an extremely rare event,” said Professor Tedesco. “Imagine Rio de Janeiro under a layer of snow and you get the idea.”
The extreme melting detected in mid-July, on the other hand, generated liquid water that refroze after a few days. “This changed the physical properties of the snowpack – making a slushy layer that turned into an icy crust after refreezing – but very likely it did not add to the runoff of meltwater that makes sea levels rise.”
The cumulative melting index, on the other hand, does account for water flowing to the ocean. The same meltwater can affect ice dynamics by lubricating the base of the ice sheet and speeding its slide toward the sea.
This year, Greenland experienced extreme melting in nearly every region – the west, northwest and northeast of the continent – but especially at high elevations. In most years, the ice and snow at high elevations in southern Greenland melt for a few days at most. This year it has already gone on for two months.
“We have to be careful because we are only talking about a couple of years and the history of Greenland happened over millennia,” cautioned Professor Tedesco. “But as far as we know now, the warming that we see in the Artic is responsible for triggering processes that enhance melting and for the feedback mechanisms that keep it going. Looking over the past few years, the exception has become part of the norm.”
* The National Snow and Ice Data Center provided satellite data from the United States Air Force Defense Meteorological Satellite Program.
The NASA Cryospheric Sciences Program and the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored this research.
Note: An upcoming paper submitted by Professor Tedesco and his colleagues examines the losses and gains that the Greenland ice sheet could experience, as projected through the end of the 21st Century according to different CO2-level scenarios.
Online:
Greenland Melting www.greenlandmelting.com
Video: Bridge destruction over Watson River, Greenland, likely a consequence of cumulative melting. (Filmed by M.Tedesco) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjXKAatiIs
NASA Release: Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
===========================================================
This quote…
“That event was exceptional in the sense that it was an extremely rare event,” said Professor Tedesco. “Imagine Rio de Janeiro under a layer of snow and you get the idea.”
In juxtaposition with this one:
“That’s a goliath year – the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979.”
…has to be one of the most ridiculous ones I’ve ever seen.
How rare? Well professor, show me the records of such melts prior to satellite monitoring and you might have an argument. Greenland melts every summer. How many summer in the past 1000 years have such levels of melt? I don’t think he can tell us. Is a 1 in 30 year event “rare”?
As for the reason, I think this figures in:
I refer you to this photograph of a Moulin in Greenland:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/03/greenland-ground-zero-for-global-soot-warming/
Image from National Geographic online slide show – Photo: James Balog – click for moreBalog writes:
In the winter a huge among of snow are accumulated on the Ice (2-3 meters, sometimes more) and we are not talking about 1 or 2 square-miles, it’s about 100.000′s of square miles (up to 1 million) on the Westside of the Ice cap and a similar picture on the Eastside… when the melting season starts in april-sep… the meltwater has to go somewhere, and for sure it goes downhill in huge meltwater rivers.
The black stuff on the bottom of the lakes is carbon dust and pollution in general… but not from one year, but several decades (the topographical conditions don’t change from year to year). On a flight over the Ice Cap a sky clear day, you can see hundreds of huge lakes with the black spot on the bottom.
See this experiment with soot on snow done by meteorologist Michael Smith of WeatherData where soot made a huge difference.
How do I apply for a research grant on carbon sequestering? I have a perfectly Green idea. Carbon powder in a spray can. Apply to walkways and driveways for solar powered snow and ice removal. Of course the can will be recyclable aluminum, that you can refill with the carbon (actually pulverized anthracite coal), with compressed air as the propellant, that you can supply from a bicycle pump. Since the carbon is not burned, and will end up in the ground and washed away by water, sequestering is achieved.
A wonderfully Green idea, with all of the expected efficiency and practicality.
Unfortunately the research and development to create a marketable product, the marketing, and the required political lobbying for the enforced mandated use of this important Earth-saving technology, will be quite expensive. I figure $10 million just for the development is quite reasonable, given current governmental rates. The efficacy has already been demonstrated by how fast black carbon (aka soot) is melting away Greenland and Arctic ice.
So, how do I get this Necessary Funding for Saving The Planet?
In looking at a higher resolution photo, it appears all the darkening “stuff” is only on the ice downwind and to the east of the land forms; also very dark. And I do not see any of those bodies of water except to the west, another indication the “stuff” is local. If the culprit is carbon dust from manly activities (cigar smokin’ included), then the ice should be equally sooty and “pollution” covered. The edges are going to melt faster on the west with the easterly wind flow off the bare land.
“How many summer in the past 1000 years have such levels of melt?”
I’d ask for 2000 or 3000 years, because 1000 includes the Little Ice Age, and we don’t know how unusual that was.
This is a nice Greenland Map reference:
http://www.geus.dk/program-areas/raw-materials-greenl-map/greenland/gr-map/kostart-uk.htm
Tad, it’s funny you bring that up. I was watching a documentary online from Al Gore’s Current network that talked about Greenland and climate change. The people of Greenland, including the indigenous tribal persons, are absolutely thrilled about global warming and hoping that it continues. I guess for Al Gore that’s a bit of an inconvenient truth — you rarely hear anyone talk about the plusses of global warming. Of course, being an Al Gore production, it’s kind of slanted. For instance, the host takes a boat near a glacier and watches it calve into the sea as if glaciers never calved every summer before man existed.
Here’s the episode: http://current.com/shows/vanguard/89521833_i-heart-global-warming.htm
Ref Anthony reply to Jimmy Haigh
August 15, 2012 at 2:29 pm
“…No wonder it’smelting with all of those microwave satellites pointing at it all day long…
‘… that will point to it and and say “See? stoopid!” that it is passive microwave radiation emanating from the area observed, not an active scan like radar….’”
Gawd that brings back memories. I worked in EW for many years, (ship board). We had a Signalman who was deathly afraid of my antennas (all passive), and would stay well clear of them like they were contagious. Despite me explaining that they did not transmit he would have no part of it. One day I caught him studying an electronics course that he was taking in his off time and I figured that he would finally understand that my antennas were not going to kill him, After he finished the course he still avoided my antennas. I asked why. “Because they are sucking in all that RF.”
I gave up.
(Note, he was a highly proficient Signalman, it’s just that some core beliefs can’t be broken)
Roger, you’re correct. The lubrication theory is false. Greenland was glaciated 130 kya when global temps were 5C warmer than present, so it’s safe to say it isn’t going anywhere soon.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Tez, the Vikings didn’t farm in Greenland for 500 years, not even close.
Shouldn’t the “researchers” be taking samples of the black shmutz at the bottom of the meltponds. Probably could determine its origins.
It’s well worth reading about the 100 years of climate warming that was widely reported in the first half of the 20th century, including how all the glaciers and the Arctic were melting like never before.
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/glaciers-icebergs-melt-as-world-gets-warmer/
http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html
These observations were undoubtedly not as precise as modern technology. However, they were probably close to the mark because the 19th century saw the end of the so-called little ice age.
“You may recall the bogus claim of “97% of Greenland Ice melted”
Actually, no, I don’t recall any such claim anywhere by anyone at anytime. Could you provide a link to a reputable news source making such a claim?
I saw plenty of reports of 97% of the surface area experiencing some melting. I suppose that some casual readers might have misread the articles, but people misread science articles all the time even with the best of reporting.
So educate me — show evidence that the media made a bogus claim corresponding to “97% of Greenland Ice melted” as opposed to “97% of Greenland Ice SURFACE EXPERIENCED MELTING”, rather than WUWT making a bogus claim about bogus claims.
“This quote…
“That event was exceptional in the sense that it was an extremely rare event,” said Professor Tedesco. “Imagine Rio de Janeiro under a layer of snow and you get the idea.”
In juxtaposition with this one:
“That’s a goliath year – the greatest melt since satellite recording began in 1979.”
…has to be one of the most ridiculous ones I’ve ever seen.”
I believe if you check you will find that Rio had a major snow storm in 1985. So, the comparison seems reasonable.
“…The black stuff on the bottom of the lakes is carbon dust and pollution in general… but not from one year, but several decades (the topographical conditions don’t change from year to year). On a flight over the Ice Cap a sky clear day, you can see hundreds of huge lakes with the black spot on the bottom…”
Looks like what we’re seeing is the creation of the new Greenland coal deposits. As this carbon dust collects, and compresses under the expanding glaciers during the upcoming MIA (Modern Ice Age), these new deposits will ensure survival for future generations.
/sarc, of course…
Summit station Conditions:
-27 C -17 F
6.0 knots
95 degrees E
As of 08/16 00:58
TJFolkerts, The following is from the NASA press release, ” In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12.” Because the term “surface” was never defined or even really described (it could mean all the ice on top of the ground), this press release seemed designed to give an impression of massive melting more than increased extent of normal melting of the topmost portion of the ice, amounting to a tiny fraction of the total ice. Of course the same press release included the term “unprecedented” in the title while explaining in the body of the article that this occurs every 150 years or so. It’s typical of the manner in which any unusual warming event is reported by both climate scientists and the media, while unusual cooling events are either ignored (mostly) or rationalized as an indirect effect of warming. Nothing bogus on this here, but high level bogosity index in the field and the media as a whole.
Looking at this from Wikipedia suggests an approximate 500 year occupancy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
Take it for what ever you think it’s worth.
It’ll depend on what you consider to be a reputable new source, of course, but try these links:
http://www.examiner.com/article/unprecedented-97-of-greenland-ice-sheet-melts-within-4-days
http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian.science/2012/07/24/greenland.ice.sheet.melted.unprecedented.rate.during.july
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/97-of-greenland-ice-sheet-melting/2635764.aspx
http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/97-of-greenland-ice-sheet-melting-20120725-22pue.html
I’m sure you’ll point out that the articles also mention that it’s the surface that’s melting, but, taking the last one as an example, the headline says “97% of Greenland ice sheet melting”.
I ignored all the blog entries I found that talk about 97% of the ice sheet melting because they’re not a “reputable news source”, but they all took their lead from the news reports, and a lot of people didn’t appreciate the difference between the ice sheet melting and the ice sheet surface melting – it’s a subtle point that escaped a lot of people. Therefore, I think it’s legitimate to say that the MSM propogated the view that 97% of the ice sheet was melting because of their poor choice of words in headlines and leading paragraphs, or poor explanation of what really happened.
Here’s another, higher profile link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57479558/97-percent-of-greenland-ice-experienced-melting-in-july/
To quote:
Now, this can be (correctly) interpreted as 97% of the surface, but the sentence before that clearly states “melting in over 97 percent of its ice sheet”. The wording is such that many, many people will interpret that as CBS news reporting 97% of the ice sheet is melting, not the 97% of the surface of the ice sheet is melting.
An example of a site that shows the interpretation that Anthony has commented on:
http://www.earthknowledge.net/index.php/knowledgeportal/93678-greenland-ice-sheet-melt-unprecedented
To quote:
I think the summer melt is a lot like my back yard. Some days my wife and I are there alone. Other days we may have a coyote visit. The day after, bunnies or deer. Raccoons show up every day. Once in a while a bear or cougar will appear. The precautionary principle says prepare so I carry a gun and a camera. So far I’ve only shot photos. Importantly I’m not over-prepared for one visitor or the other. The raccoons are probably the most dangerous visitors, and for them, tall boots should they decide we’re too close to the babies. Neither guns nor well-aimed imprecations do well against them, and they are known to carry rabies.
The precautionary principle applied to the arctic is simple – don’t over spend on one uncertainty vs another. You may choose badly and won’t have the political will or the funds to reverse course. Our planet has spent far more time colder than this and precious little time warmer. We’re in for a cold snap.
I would like to thank the scientists involved for gathering and so clearly presenting the data above.
(all NONE of it).
The ice-sheet temperature is -32.0C once you get past the first several metres. Melt water is going nowhere but refreezing in the ice-sheet (somewhere close to the surface).
TJF, here’s the quote reported: (see former wuwt post, just search for 97%)
“A heat dome over the icy country melted a whopping 97 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet in mid-July, NASA said, calling it yet more evidence of the effect man is having on the planet.”
Kids blindly believe the media. Seems you would be outraged by this type of subliminal propaganda instead of defending, marginalizing and white-washing it Mr. Folkerts, for this type of hyperbole from your side is streaming it out daily. Didn’t I read somewhere in the past you were a teacher of young people?
From tjfolkerts on August 15, 2012 at 6:55 pm:
97 percent of Greenland ice experienced melting in July (bold added)
Sure sounds like “97% melted” to me. Heck, ice ain’t hamburger. If someone hears “97% of the ice in the freezer thawed” they’ll take that to mean 97% of it melted, so that bit counts too.
Yes, with a careful reading of the online article, with info hidden in the online picture caption, you could figure out it is 97% of the ice sheet “at or near the surface”, that had thawed. But as a brief nightly TV news piece something like listened to during supper, cut up into little snippets for news blurbs, “97 of Greenland ice melted” will be the message conveyed.
Of course you did ask for a reputable news source, and this is CBS. YMMV.
Whoops, Graeme W already got that one. “Reload, read, then post.” I should have that tattooed on the back of my hand so I can remember it better. 😉
I’m pretty sure that the 97% melting.. without mentioning that it is surface melt, comes from the prime misrepresenter of climate spin in Australia.. Flannery !!