2012: The Year Greenland Melted (AKA Alarmists Gone Wild)

Guest Post by David Middleton

“Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt… Right On Time”

Figure 1. Alarmists gone wild at CCNY.

I guess Professor Tedesco missed this…

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

How can an ice sheet surface melt be both “unprecedented” and “right on time”?

It can’t. However, nothing is impossible when you combine govt bureaucrats and the junk science of anthropogenic global warming…

Figure 2. NASA sees “unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet surface melt… right on time”

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

07.24.12

For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

[…]

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

[…]

NASA>

Summit Station’s summer peak temperatures flirted with 0°C for a few hours in late July.

Figure 3. Summit Station Greenland Weather. http://www.summitcamp.org/status/weather/index?period=month

Hence the somewhat unusual wide-spread, right-on-time melt.

This melt shows up very clearly in the Greenland Ice Sheet Albedo…

Figure 4. Greenland ice sheet albedo 2500-3200m elevations (meltfactor.org)

The “normal” summer melt season albedo minimum at 2500-3200m is in the range of 0.79-0.82. This year, it briefly dropped to just below 0.74.

albedo

Figure 5. Albedo (Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

 

 

“Normal” is based on 12 years of data. The GRACE measurements upon which the accelerating ice loss claims are based are heavily dependent on the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). While not as large as Antarctica (where the GIA’s margin of error is nearly as large as the asserted ice loss), GIA variations can result in totally different ice loss values… And the GRACE time series isn’t any longer than the MODIS time series.

Wu et al., 2010 determined that the GIA commonly assumed for Greenland was way too high and that the 2002-2008 ice loss rate was 104 Gt/yr rather than the oft cited 230 Gt/yr. Even at 230 Gt/yr, it would take 1,000 years for Greenland to lose 5% of its ice mass.

Riva et al., 2007 concluded that the ice mass-loss rate in Antarctica from 2002-2007 could have been anywhere from zero-point-zero Gt/yr up to 120 Gt/yr. Dr. Riva recently co-authored a paper in GRL (Thomas et al., 2011) which concluded that GPS observations suggest “that modeled or empirical GIA uplift signals are often over-estimated” and that “the spatial pattern of secular ice mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data and GIA models may be unreliable, and that several recent secular Antarctic ice mass loss estimates are systematically biased, mainly too high.”

So… We have barely a decade’s worth of data and no idea if the modern melt rates and albedo changes are anomalous relative to the early 20th century Arctic warming, Medieval Warm Period or any of the other millennial-scale Holocene warming periods.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that unless some alarmist can tell me what the albedo was in 1899, 1127, 1143 and 1939, during the vast majority of the Holocene or during the Sangamonian, my response is, “Very interesting. Now, move along, there’s nothing more to see here.”

Figure 6. Greenland temperature reconstruction since 1000 AD.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/warming-island-greenland-sea-regional-climate-and-arctic-sea-ice-reconstruction/

Figure 7. Late Pleistocene-Holocene temperature reconstruction for Central Greenland.
(After Alley, 2000)

Figure 8. North Greenland temperature reconstruction since Late Sangamonian.
(NGRIP)

Manhattan-sized Icebergs!!!

Figure 9. “Manhattan Transfer”
(MSNBC)

Manhattan-sized Icebergs are insignificant relative to Greenland-sized ice sheets.

  • Manhattan: 34 square miles.
  • Greenland ice sheet: 660,235 square miles.

Manhattan = 0.005% of Greenland ice sheet. 99.995% of the Greenland ice sheet did not participate in this event.

If one Manhattan-sized chunk of ice calved into the ocean every year and there was no snow accumulation in Greenland for 1,000 years, Greenland would lose 5% of its ice sheet.

A little perspective on Manhattan-sized chunks of ice…

Figure 10. Manhattan-sized chunks of ice are insignificant compared to Petermann Glacier, much less the Greenland ice sheet.
(Wikipedia and Google Earth)

The yellow trapezoid in the middle of the red circle is “Manhattan.” Massive calving events from the Petermann Glacier are not unusual… “Whether the massive calving in 2010 represents natural episodic variability or a response to global and/or ocean warming in the fjord remains speculative…” (Johannessen et al., 2011). Petermann Glacier isn’t even calving from the glacial terminus. It’s actually calving from the ice shelf in the northern outlet of Baffin Bay.

Figure 11. Jakobshavn Isbrae.
(Climate4you)

This is a Google Earth photo of Jakobshavn Isbrae, Greenland’s largest outlet glacier…The red lines represent the calving front’s retreat from 1851-1942.If the calving front retreated almost 20 km over that 90-yr period and Greenland’s ice sheet is supposedly vanishing (according to the Warmists), why does the Google Earth image show so much ice downstream of the calving front?

Surely if Jakobshavn Isbrae’s calving front retreated by nearly 20 km before SUV’s, it must have retreated much more than 20 km farther upstream that the 1942 front by now… Right?

Figure 12. Jakobshavn Isbrae.
(Wikipedia)

It appears to have only retreated by a bit more than 10 km since 1942… But, why is there still so much ice downstream of the calving front? If the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing, surely that must be open ocean… erm… open fjord by now… Right?

All that moving around of the calving front and all that lack of disappearing ice might lead someone to think that glaciers are rather dynamic…

Jakobshavn Isbrae – Greenland Glacier Has Always Changed With The Climate

By News Staff | July 16th 2011

New research on Jakobshavn Isbrae, a tongue of ice extending out to sea from Greenland’s west coast, shows that large, marine-calving glaciers don’t just shrink rapidly in response to global warming, they also grow at a remarkable pace during periods of global cooling. *Glaciers change.

[…]

Jakobshavn Isbrae has been the focus of intense scientific interest because it is one of the world’s fastest-flowing glaciers, releasing enormous quantities of Greenland’s ice into the ocean. It is believed that changes in the rate at which icebergs calve off from the glacier could influence global sea level rise. The decline of Jakobshavn Isbrae between 1850 and 2010 has been documented, mostly recently through aerial photographs and satellite photographs.

“We know that Jakobshavn Isbrae has retreated at this incredible rate in recent years, and our study suggests that it advanced that fast, also,” said Jason Briner, the associate professor of geology at the University of Buffalo, who led the research. “Our results support growing evidence that calving glaciers are particularly sensitive to climate change.”

[…]

Science 2.0

Figure 13. Jakobshavn Isbrae.
(Wikipedia and Google Earth)

“Our results support growing evidence that calving glaciers are particularly sensitive to climate change.”Greenland’s climate is always changing… Always has and always will change… And the climate changes observed over the last few decades are not unprecedented. The Greenland ice sheet is no more disappearing this year than it was last year and it is physically impossible for the ice sheet to “collapse” into the ocean.

Each and every [fill-in-the-blank]-sized iceberg to calve off Greenland or Antarctica triggers the same alarmist nonsense and glacial junk science journalism. Glaciers are rivers of ice. They flow downhill. When downhill is toward the ocean, they calve icebergs. Increased calving of icebergs is indicative of excess ice accumulation, not melting. Past glacial stages and stadials are associated with an increase in dropstones in marine sediment cores because icebergs calve more frequently when the source of ice is expanding.
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jim

Good article by Lomborg over at Slate. Strikes back at the alarmist nonsense spewed by Krugman that global warming is causing everything.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/08/lomborg_paul_krugman_is_wrong_to_say_that_climate_change_causes_extreme_weather_.html

Ben

Good stuff Dave Middleton.
If possible, please separate your article into two different articles on WUWT.
Your “Manhattan-sized Icebergs!!!” section is very interesting and should be a stand alone article, so it gets more views. You can still put in links from one article to the other, but I think a lot of people would like to see your Manhattan-sized Icebergs!!! write-up by itself. It could give it more widespread distribution. As it is, it may be buried so far into the first article and missed by too many people, who would like to see it and pass it on. Just a suggestion.

Well here’s the latest in the related junk science education push. NSF just granted $19 million to push the manmade global warming meme in US classrooms on malleable, captive minds.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/08/nsf_promotes_climate-change_ed.html?print=1
Part of their on-going campaign to use our tax money and education and the social sciences to influence perceptions of reality. Actual reality that is inconveniently not supporting the useful collectivist political theory and treasury looting scheme for political cronies can be ignored if you can just catch that filtering mindset at the right time.
What an expensive farce that is to be going on in schools.

rogerknights

Ben says:
August 17, 2012 at 8:45 am
Good stuff Dave Middleton.
If possible, please separate your article into two different articles on WUWT.

Seconded!

Bobl

I got it, I know where the lost ice has gone – It fell on Canberra!

jim

I do not think they know what “unprecedented” means.

Robin says:
August 17, 2012 at 8:53 am
Well here’s the latest in the related junk science education push. NSF just granted $19 million to push the manmade global warming meme in US classrooms on malleable, captive minds.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/08/nsf_promotes_climate-change_ed.html?print=1

Good grief! How can we put a stop to the federal government promulgating junk science to kids?
Just electing a new President isn’t going to do it. The entrenched bureaucracies aren’t going to change unless people are fired and replaced.
/Mr Lynn

Steve Keohane

Thanks David, nothing like a little historical perspective to counter the modern hysterical perspective.

dorlomin

I love the way they have nicked the albedo graph from a real scientist, Jason Box’s blog. People should read Jasons blog rather than this empty headed psuedoscience.
REPLY: Pay “dorlomin” no mind, he obviously can’t reconcile the fact that the graphs and discussion he’s whining about don’t show what he wants, so therefore he must issue the usual condemnation. Watching “dorlomin” over the years, he has yet to contribute anything to the debate except complaints. He’s one of those commenters who’s comments are entirely predictable. – Anthony

Phil.

“Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt… Right On Time”
David, you appear to imply that Prof Tedesco actually said this whereas I see no evidence of that.

RHS

Glaciers reached a peak in the 1700s and have been retreating long before the industrial revolution,” This is posted online here from the National Park Service:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/mendenhall/faq.html

Entropic man

I notice from the graph of albedo against day of the year that mean and 1 sigma values are 80.5+/- 1.5%. This makes the 95% confidence limits (2 sigma)+/-3%.
For the statistically naive among you, sigma is a measure of how much individual measurements spread above and below the mean.The probability of seeing a measurement more than 2 sigma away from the mean is less than 5%.
This is the generally accepted threshold at which a scientist would become interested and start looking for a reason for the divergence, rather than just accepting it as part of the normal variation. The lower 2 sigma boundary for this data is 77.5%. Anything below that indicates that something may have changed in the real world.
The 2010 minimum was 77.2%, just outside 2 sigma and with a probability just below 5%. The 2011 minimum reached 73%, 5 sigmas below the mean and a probability well below 1%.
With each of 2009,2010,2011 and 2012 minima lower than its predecessor and the last two significantly outside the normal range ,it is hard to escape the conclusion that some real world change is affecting the behaviour of the ice sheet surface. Candidates, anyone?

I am intrigued to know what the Warmists thought would have happened to the Peterman glacier if it had not calved off. Would it have continued to grow forever?

Gary

…nothing is impossible when you combine govt bureaucrats and the junk science of anthropogenic global warming…

Don’t leave out the thoroughly naive/incompetent/duplicitous journalists/editors doing their bit in the spread of disinformation.

David Ross

Good job David and very enlightening.
I particularly appreciated the amount of work you put into the graphics. They really put the issue into much needed perspective.

David Ross

P.S. I presume the acronym of your subtitle was an intentional pun : )
Alarmists Gone Wild…AGW…Anthropogenic Global Warming

pat

I suspect that like the more famous Muir Glacier (Glacier Bay, Alaska), this glacier blossomed during the Little Ice Age and has been retreating since the warming commenced around 1850.
Interestingly enough, Indian legends and recent botanical/paleoclimate studies concur on the history of Glacier Bay. And the park rangers up there, some being Indians, have little belief in CAGW. Particularly since their ancestors experienced catastrophic natural cooling.

James

Thank you, I enjoyed reading your article. What causes this 150 year surface melt cycle?

Lars P.

“The GRACE measurements upon which the accelerating ice loss claims are based are heavily dependent on the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). While not as large as Antarctica (where the GIA’s margin of error is nearly as large as the asserted ice loss), GIA variations can result in totally different ice loss values…”
This is very important information I was not aware of.
Can somebody explain in which way is it depending on it? Do I correctly understand that they assume Greenland and Antarctica are lifting up even with the whole ice on them?
So the ice lost measurement by GRACE are again dependent of a modelled quantity…
Speaking of this John Daly had an interesting posting about the whole sea level rise in 20th century:
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
“The world’s public was given the clear impression that the claimed 18 cm sea level rise for the 20th century was an observed quantity. It is now clear that this is not the case. The 18 cm figure arrived at is the product of combining data from tide gauges with the output of the ICE-3G de-glaciation model.
The logical equation here is simple.
an observed quantity ± a modeled quantity = a modeled quantity
Thus, the claimed 18 cm sea level rise is a model construct, not an observed value at all.
Worse still, the model which has created it is primarily focused on the North Atlantic basin which shows relative sea level trends quite unlike those observed outside that region. Thus, global estimates cannot be inferred with any confidence from modeled trends which mainly affect only that basin.”
Somebody said it already…models all the way down..

Entropic man

Mr. Middleton, do you know on what dates your photos in figures 11 and 12 of the Jakobshavn Isbrae were taken? The calving fronts labelled reflect the minimum extent of the glacier at the warmest part of the thaw.
The position of the ice front in the photograph and the lack of snow suggest that the picture was taken considerably later in the season after the ice front had moved seaward once more, but before the first snowfall. That would explain why ice is visible downstream of the minimum extent fronts.

Entropic man

Lars P. says:
August 17, 2012 at 10:33 am
“The GRACE measurements upon which the accelerating ice loss claims are based are heavily dependent on the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). While not as large as Antarctica (where the GIA’s margin of error is nearly as large as the asserted ice loss), GIA variations can result in totally different ice loss values…”
This is very important information I was not aware of.
Can somebody explain in which way is it depending on it? Do I correctly understand that they assume Greenland and Antarctica are lifting up even with the whole ice on them?
———————————————————————-
This paper discusses ground level measurements of the isostatic uplift or sinking of Greenland rocks, to give a more accurate GIA to complement the GRACE data.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005GeoJI.163..865D

Phil.

James says:
August 17, 2012 at 10:31 am
Thank you, I enjoyed reading your article. What causes this 150 year surface melt cycle?

There is no 150 year cycle, over the last 1,000 years there have been 4 such events (not including this year, three of them clustered about 1,000 years ago. The 150 year value is the average over the last 10,000 years with the peak occurring about 7,000 years ago, when the frequency was about 1 per 25 years. At that time July insolation was higher than now.

Entropic man

To simplify, the GRACE satellite keeps a running check on its position based on the GPS satellite network. This allows its orbit to be monitored to sufficient accuracy to detect changes due to mass concentrations like the Greenland ice sheet, effectively measuring the mass of the ice sheet.
Greenland floats on the Earth’s mantle like a boat in water. Like a boat, if weight is removed it floats higher. This is the GIA and happens if the ice mass decreases.
Since the effect of the ice sheet’s gravity on GRACE increase with mass and closeness to the satellite, ground based GPS measures of the uplift of the underlying rock are needed. This allows orbital changes due the mass of the ice to be distinguished from changes due to uplift, giving a more accurate measurement of ice mass and a better view of whether ice mass is changing with time.

Neil Gundel

I don’t know what this author is so excited about. I read several articles on this event. All of them plainly stated that melting of the entire surface has been unprecedented in the satellite era, but scientists are aware from other evidence that it has happened every 150 years or so historically, so on that scale, not particularly surprising.
The potion relating to calving seems to be making the unremarkable point that the is normal during periods of global warming, which he seems to concede is now happening.

Bill Illis

The Danish DMI noted on July 27, 2012 that the Greenland Summit regularly gets above 0.0C in the summer.
This DMI report was done in response to the original “science/myth” pushed out by NASA and a NASA-based Greenland ice core scientist Lora Koenig.
Google English translation version of the DMI on July 27, 2012 and they don’t sound pleased.
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&u=http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/t_vejr_pa_gr_nlands_top
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/groenland2.gif
Record temp at the Summit is +4.4C.

Gail Combs

Entropic man says:
August 17, 2012 at 10:05 am
I notice from the graph of albedo against day of the year that mean…
___________________________________
The earth’s climate is not static. You have just found evidence that it is not static. Congratulations.
See my last comment on the ~ 1500 yr Bond events and Dansgaard- Oeschger oscillations and the ~ 88 yr and the ~ 200 yr cycles found by Dr Alexander Ruzmaikin and Dr. Joan Feynman of NASA.

tjfolkerts

“If the calving front retreated almost 20 km over that 90-yr period and Greenland’s ice sheet is supposedly vanishing (according to the Warmists), why does the Google Earth image show so much ice downstream of the calving front?”
I’m not particularly an expert on the subject, but aren’t you simply confusing sea ice and ice shelves? Every winter, sea ice forms around most of Greenland; every summer most of that seas ice around Greenland melts again. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=01&fy=2011&sm=09&sd=01&sy=2011
This sea ice is typically no more than 5 m thick. The front of the Peterman Glacier is ~ 50 m thick. So sea ice several meters thick (varying by season) would be expected “downstream” from the end of the glacier/ice shelf. The calving front could and would be FAR upstream from the end of the thin sea ice.

Entropic man

Gail, please show me, with numbers, that the warming effect observed is consistent with the cycles you mention. You need to show that the overall effect of the three cycles shows a warming trend at present and that the amount of energy they are pumping into the system is consistent with the changes we see. If you want to convince the climate scientists that these cycles, and not cAGW, responsible for the changes we see, you ned to demonstrate that they better fit the real world data.

Entropic man

Neil Gundel says:
August 17, 2012 at 11:24 am
“The portion relating to calving seems to be making the unremarkable point that this is normal during periods of global warming, which he seems to concede is now happening.”
————————————————
A glacier forms inland and flows downhill. On land it melts when it reaches the 0C temperature contour, this defines the tip. In Winter the lower temperatures allow the tip to move downhill and in Summer it retreats uphill. The highest tip position during Summer is used to define the length of the glacier
If the climate warms, the Summer 0C contour moves uphill and the glacier melts higher up the valley. If climate cools the 0C contour moves downhill and so does the melting tip of the glacier.
If a glacier reaches the sea, the end floats and, as well as melting, pieces break off the tip or the entire tip detaches. This is calving and happens every year at the position where the tip of the glacier reaches 0C.
In Winter or in a a cold period the glacier extends the full lenght of its fjord and the tip pushes out into the sea ice. In Summer it calves in the fjord. As the Summer warms the calving front recedes up the fjord, furthest inland at the peak Summer temperatures.
A long-term warming trend causes a trend in calving points, with the Summer minimum moving further inland over the years. This shows in the Jakobshavn Isbrae photos, in which the ice flows from a source on the right towards the sea on the left, while the Summer maximum calving point has moved inland to the right over the last 162 years.

Phil.

If the calving front retreated almost 20 km over that 90-yr period and Greenland’s ice sheet is supposedly vanishing (according to the Warmists), why does the Google Earth image show so much ice downstream of the calving front?
The calving front is the position where the glacier breaks up into bergs, it does not mean that the bergs cease to exist downstream of the front, in fact a glacier like Jakobshavn which advances at about 20m/day you’d expect a continuous production of bergs to keep the fjord downstream filled.

Gail Combs

Entropic man says:
August 17, 2012 at 11:51 am
…..If you want to convince the climate scientists that these cycles, and not cAGW, responsible for the changes we see, you ned to demonstrate that they better fit the real world data. that these cycles, and not cAGW, responsible for the changes we see, you ned to demonstrate that they better fit the real world data.
_____________________
NOPE, you have it backwards. Climate scientists have to convince ME that there is something going on that is not typical of Earth’s climate.
A look at the last five interglacials Vostok Graph show there is no excess heating in the Holocene. The Holocene isn’t even as hot as other interglacials were. A look at the Greenland Holocene Graph shows the earth is not warming but gradually cooling during the Holocene. And more than one paper states were are heading into a glaciation.

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al
…Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present.

Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6 o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398{418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6 o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398{418 ka as from 250 {650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a “double precession-cycle” interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”
http://web.pdx.edu/~chulbe/COURSES/QCLIM/reprints/LisieckiRaymo_preprint.pdf

JJ

Entropic man says:
For the statistically naive among you, sigma is a measure of how much individual measurements spread above and below the mean.The probability of seeing a measurement more than 2 sigma away from the mean is less than 5%.
This is the generally accepted threshold at which a scientist would become interested and start looking for a reason for the divergence, rather than just accepting it as part of the normal variation.

The statistically astute among as would like to ask you to describe the period of observation that produced the distribution against which you are comparing this “extreme” event, and to reconcile that with your use of the terms “divergence” and “normal variation”. Ooh! and “real world”. That is a doozy.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From Tim Folkerts on August 17, 2012 at 11:48 am:

I’m not particularly an expert on the subject, but aren’t you simply confusing sea ice and ice shelves? Every winter, sea ice forms around most of Greenland; every summer most of that seas ice around Greenland melts again.

Google Maps: Jakobshavn Isbrae (zoom out as needed)
From DMI: Satellite images of Disko region
Recent AQUA satellite image, Jakobshavn Isbrae calving area clearly visible:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Disko/20120816AQUA.jpg
Do you think that could be sea ice instead of calved-off ice shelf chunks? With the calving front more that 30 miles inland?

Gunga Din

Paul Homewood says:
August 17, 2012 at 10:10 am
I am intrigued to know what the Warmists thought would have happened to the Peterman glacier if it had not calved off. Would it have continued to grow forever?
===============================================================
I would have become Peterman’s p ….. no. Better not.

cftygv

“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”
Really?
Which is the most viewed site on the science of global warming and climate change?
[Reply: One and the same, note the content and the awards on the sidebar. ~mod]

Gunga Din

YIKES! Typo.
“I would have become Peterman’s p ….. no. Better not.”
Should be “IT would have become Peterman’s p ….. no. Better not.”

JJ:
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply. The paid troll snows a thread with untrue assertions phrased to imply he/she/they knows something about the subject and makes arrogant excuses if pressed to justify the assertions.
The purpose of this behaviour seems to be to mislead ‘lurkers’ who are unfamiliar with the subject.
Richard

Richard M

The applicability of statistics to things like sea ice is very questionable. As soon as an event occurs like the wind driven melt in 2007 the baseline period has no meaning. It’s now apples and oranges. These are not random events and the use of statistics requires a little thinking instead of throwing out worthless numbers.
But then why am I not surprised that a true believer would either be ignorant or try to fool people with statistical lies.

Gunga Din

Gail Combs says:
August 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Entropic man says:
August 17, 2012 at 11:51 am
…..If you want to convince the climate scientists that these cycles, and not cAGW, responsible for the changes we see, you ned to demonstrate that they better fit the real world data. that these cycles, and not cAGW, responsible for the changes we see, you ned to demonstrate that they better fit the real world data.
_____________________
NOPE, you have it backwards. Climate scientists have to convince ME that there is something going on that is not typical of Earth’s climate.
=======================================================================
A few times on different post I’ve asked just what (ice, sea level, temps, climate, etc.) is SUPPOSED to be if Man’s influence were removed from the equation. I’ve never seen anyone answer that.

Entropic man

JJ says:
August 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm
The satellite’s been up thirteen years and has so far given 12 years of data. As to the validity of my analysis, if n<30 the variance gets very large, but it does not affect the basic technique.
"Real world"? There is one, unless you are a solipsist. I'm trying to understand it better using whatever comes to hand. What are you doing?

HR

“nothing is impossible when you combine govt bureaucrats and the junk science of anthropogenic global warming”
Would Lora Koenig fall into the category of govt bureaucrat? I guess the important thing to remember is believe the bureaucrat that best expresses your own world view.

Entropic man

Gunga Din says:
August 17, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Gail Combs says:
August 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm
NOPE, you have it backwards. Climate scientists have to convince ME that there is something going on that is not typical of Earth’s climate.
=======================================================================
A few times on different post I’ve asked just what (ice, sea level, temps, climate, etc.) is SUPPOSED to be if Man’s influence were removed from the equation. I’ve never seen anyone answer that.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
I get that a lot here, Gunga Din. These people are negative. They are good at sounding doubtful about cAGW, but have problems coming up with alternatives.
Consider Gail Combs. She has a hypothesis that the temperature variations we see are driven by three interlocking cycles of different lengths. Does she present data and calculations to demonstrate that this is so?
She does not.
This double standard is very evident here. I am constantly asked to prove my own ideas, , but few of the sceptics ever even try to prove their own. Those that do try, tend to present strange graphs and say “Look, this proves it!”. They provide no background argument or explaination.
The only time Gail convinced me of anything was to improve my understanding of the complexity of air conditioner/ weather station interactions. Even then I had to do most of the legwork.
In any proper scientific forum these people would be slaughtered, which is probably why they hide here among friends instead of doing real science and taking it out into the real world.
Mr. Watts 2012 paper is a valiant effort to operate at the level of professional scientific debate. I hope it reaches publishable standard. Most of the rest of the sceptic comments here follow the old rule that 90% of everything is rubbish.

Entropic man

David Middleton says:
August 17, 2012 at 3:04 pm
The problem is that the GRACE-based pronouncements of accelerating ice mass loss are based on model-derived, rather than measured, GIA.
GRACE is a really cool instrument package. However, its measurements are nearly worthless if they are modified with a GIGO GIA.
————————-
Maybe this upgrade to the system will help.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/gpsspring.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/30/11944.full?sid=1a3dc591-09fd-46ed-a2c8-fa61848ec70f

tjfolkerts

KD Knoebel,
Thanks for those links — I learned a bit more about glaciers. In particular:
“Icebergs breaking from the glacier are often so large (up to a kilometer in height) that they are too tall to float down the fjord and lie stuck on the bottom of its shallower areas, sometimes for years, until they are broken up by the force of the glacier and icebergs further up the fjord. ”
and
“Thinning causes the glacier to be more buoyant, even becoming afloat at the calving front, and is responsive to tidal changes. ”
(Both from Wikipedia)
So the calving front is “inland” but not “on land” — still in a deep fjord that can have water in the bottom. Ice breaks free but then can’t easily escape. So we have “crushed ice” potentially 100’s of meters thick getting pushed in front of the actual glacier. This region is neither glacier nor ice shelf nor sea ice

Gunga Din

Entropic man says:
August 17, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Gunga Din says:
August 17, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Gail Combs says:
August 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm
NOPE, you have it backwards. Climate scientists have to convince ME that there is something going on that is not typical of Earth’s climate.
=======================================================================
Me: A few times on different post I’ve asked just what (ice, sea level, temps, climate, etc.) is SUPPOSED to be if Man’s influence were removed from the equation. I’ve never seen anyone answer that.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
E-man: I get that a lot here, Gunga Din. These people are negative. They are good at sounding doubtful about cAGW, but have problems coming up with alternatives.
==============================================================
OK. So what is the Greenland Ice supposed to be? If the melting is abnormal due to Man, what is normal?
Without knowing what “normal” is, how can anyone say what is happening is “abnormal”?
My question remains unanswered.

Entropic says:
“Climate scientists have to convince ME that there is something going on that is not typical of Earth’s climate.”
^That^ statement shows unequivocally that Entropic is not a scientist. A scientist abides by the scientific method. But Entropic trying to put scientific skeptics in the position of having to prove a negative. That is not the scientific method; that is wild-eyed witch doctor territory.
I recommend that Entropic get up to speed on the null hypothesis, which shows clearly that nothing unusual is happening. Everything we observe today, from Arctic ice cover to temperatures, has routinely happened before. The null hypothesis has never been falsified, which destroys the CAGW science fiction fantasy.