Oceans Melting Greenland campaign (OMG)

UCI, NASA reveal new details of Greenland ice loss

Data are dramatically increasing knowledge of how the ocean is melting the ice sheet

From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – IRVINE

Maps of the northwest Greenland coastline before (left) and after (right) OMG data were incorporated. The coastline itself -- the edge of the glacier ice -- appears as a faint white line. The right-hand image shows several previously unknown troughs revealed by the OMG seafloor survey. CREDIT Credit: UCI

Maps of the northwest Greenland coastline before (left) and after (right) OMG data were incorporated. The coastline itself — the edge of the glacier ice — appears as a faint white line. The right-hand image shows several previously unknown troughs revealed by the OMG seafloor survey. CREDIT
Credit: UCI

Irvine, Calif., February 9, 2017 – Less than a year after the first research flight kicked off NASA’s Oceans Melting Greenland campaign, data from the new program are providing a dramatic increase in knowledge of how Greenland’s ice sheet is melting from below. Two new research papers in the journal Oceanography, including one by UCI Earth system scientist Mathieu Morlighem, use OMG observations to document how meltwater and ocean currents are interacting along Greenland’s west coast and to improve seafloor maps used to predict future melting and sea level rise.

OMG is a five-year campaign to study the glaciers and ocean along Greenland’s 27,000-mile coastline. Its goal is to find out where and how fast seawater is melting the glacial ice. Most of the coastline and seafloor around the ice sheet had never been surveyed, so the 2016 flights expanded scientists’ knowledge of Greenland significantly. Future years of data collection will reveal the rate of change around the island.

The water circulating close around the Greenland Ice Sheet is like a cold river floating atop a warm, salty ocean. The top 600 feet (200 meters) of colder water is relatively fresh and comes from the Arctic. Below that is saltwater that comes from the south, 6 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) warmer than the fresher water above. The layers don’t mix much because freshwater weighs less than saltwater, so it stays afloat.

If a glacier reaches the ocean where the seafloor is shallow, the ice interacts with frigid freshwater and melts slowly. Conversely, if the seafloor in front of a glacier is deep, the ice spills into the warm subsurface layer of saltwater and may melt relatively rapidly. Satellite remote sensing can’t see below the surface to discern the depth of the seafloor or study the layers of water. OMG makes these measurements with shipboard and airborne instruments.

Improving maps used to project sea level rise

In the first paper, UCI’s Morlighem used the OMG surveys to improve maps of the bedrock under some of the West Coast glaciers. Glaciologists worldwide use these and other maps in modeling the rate of ice loss in Greenland and projecting future losses.

A coastal glacier’s response to a warming climate depends heavily not only on the depth of the seafloor in front of it, as explained above, but on the shape of the bedrock below it. Before OMG, virtually the only measurements Morlighem had of these critical landscapes were long, narrow strips of data collected along flight lines of research aircraft, sometimes tens of miles inland (upstream) from a glacier’s ocean front. He has been estimating the shape of the bedrock outside of the flight lines with the help of other data such as ice flow speeds, but formerly had no good way to check how accurate his estimates are at the coastline.

Morlighem noted, “OMG [data are] not only improving our knowledge of the ocean floor, they’re improving our knowledge of the topography of the land, too.” This is because the campaign’s seafloor survey revealed features under the ocean, such as troughs cut by glaciers during the last ice age, which must continue upstream under the glacial ice. Therefore, Morlighem said, “By having OMG’s measurements close to the ice front, I can tell whether what I thought about the bed topography is correct or not.” Morlighem was pleasantly surprised to discover that 90 percent of the glacier depths he had estimated were within 160 feet (50 meters) of the actual depths recorded by the OMG survey.

Tracking meltwater far into the North

In the second paper, Ian Fenty of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and coauthors, including Morlighem, tracked water up the West Coast to see how it changed as it interacted with hundreds of melting coastal glaciers. They found that in northwest Greenland, cold and fresh water flowing into glacial fjords from the melting surface of the ice sheet is cooling the warmer subsurface water, which circulates clockwise around the island. In one instance, evidence for meltwater-cooled waters was found in fjords 100 miles (160 kilometers) downstream from its source. Fenty noted, “This is the first time we’ve documented glacier meltwater significantly impacting ocean temperatures so far downstream. That shows meltwater can play an important role in determining how much ocean heat ultimately reaches Greenland’s glaciers.”

The OMG data have enough detail that researchers are beginning to pinpoint the ice-loss risk for individual glaciers along the coast, according to principal investigator Josh Willis of JPL. “Without OMG, we wouldn’t be able to conclude that Upernavik Glacier is vulnerable to ocean warming, whereas Cornell Glacier is less vulnerable,” he said.

###

The two papers are available online:

Improving bed topography mapping of Greenland glaciers using NASA’s Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) data, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2016.99

Oceans Melting Greenland: Early Results from NASA’s Ocean-Ice Mission in Greenland, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2016.100

Advertisements

185 thoughts on “Oceans Melting Greenland campaign (OMG)

  1. Here is a graph of Total Greenland Ice Mass since 1900.

    If anyone thinks it is incorrect, produce your own and show where mine is incorrect.

      • Andy,
        You have exploded the myth of AGW !, now just submit your alternative evidence to the World to receive your well deserved response.

      • And there you are AGAIN with your vile name. “WTH” would get the job done and not be as disgustingly vile. But, then, it wouldn’t be an apt nickname for YOU, would it.

        Also,

        get — a — clue: the burden of proof has always been and remains on the AGWers.

      • Janice,
        You have an unfortunate mind, it stands for What The Fudge and your use of HELL offends me. I could change it to GG ( Golly Gosh ) but I think that would be too strong.
        Btw ( By the Way ), the fact that these denier sites exist in alternative science world proves that the burden of proof is with you.

    • That pretty much sums it up. I flew over Greenland last June on the way to Helsinki and got a good look at the mind-numbing amount of ice there, as well as the maze those glaciers have to move through to get to the sea. The idea that the Greenland ice cap could lose any significant portion of its mass in anything less than 5000 years is preposterous.

      • Kurt,
        You made that flight just in time. The ice no longer exists. It has disappeared faster than Al Gore’s Arctic ice and North America’s snow.
        They have all disappeared. We will never see them again.
        It is an unmitigated catastrophe. Please send more grant money.

      • No, the solar incidence would be less interesting as the cycles would be hard to see. But, it would still prove the point that the sun gives off fairly constant energy. And if you graphed it from 0 to 1500 but your divisions were 500, I think you would still see a few features. One should always give the whole story and use results from multiple methods of measurement – if available.

      • Chuckle,…. you are welcome to try to update my graphs .. :-)

        Rules are simple

        It displays the Total Greenland Ice Mass.. no “animoals” or stuff like that.

        Vertical axis is zeroed and unbroken, horizontal axis is linear from1900 to now.

      • You’re not going to get very far with your stuff: NOAA’s graphs are much more exciting. 3,000 Gigatonnes down! That’s why it got into my local paper.

        Have you thought of plotting your graphs on photos of Beyonce (whoever that is)? Might get a bit more traction. Or a cute puppy?

        BTW: what were your sources of absolute ice mass, just out of interest?

      • “Vertical axis is zeroed and unbroken, horizontal axis is linear from1900 to now.”

        Some people claim that the power of the sun changes in a cyclical manner. However, if you use the rule above it is plain that there is no variation at all!

        It follows that we must either stop investigation sun cycles, or acknowledge that the above rule is sometimes inappropriate.

      • seaice1, I like that graph, have not seen that one very often. Nice to see multiple measures
        of solar activity on same graph.

      • Yes Billw1984, it is an interesting graph. In the context of this post though, it would cease to be interesting if the Y axis started at zero and was unbroken. It would look rather like AndyG55’s graph of Greenland ice.

      • Both graphs are instructive. Or you could have a graph in between which might be the most useful of all. Say with the scales between 2 to 3 x 10^15 to show that there is a small decrease but not significant. I realize the 2nd graph is of a delta or anomaly not total ice. If we round up the 2.7 to ~3 x 10^15 and using the total decrease of 3000 gigatons, which is 3 x 10^12, we see the decrease is 1 part per thousand or 0.1% over ~14 years. At that rate, if it stays linear, it will take ~1,500 years to lose 10% of the ice. Check my math since I did it in my head. Or 140 years for 1%. Anyone know how that would translate into sea level increase?

      • I do not think the solar incidence graph would be very instructive at all with the scale set to zero. All evidence of cycles would disappear.

      • Of course the claim that TSI is the only factor that matters has been disproven, but don’t let that get in the way of making an irrelevant point.

      • MarkW, you seem to have missed the point. It is not a comment about TSI per se, but about graphs that have a narrow Y axis. The TSI one covers only about 4 units in 1370. If we started it at zero you would not see anything except a horizontal line. Yet we think that sort of graph is useful and demonstrates interesting things.

        It must therefore follow that we do not have to start all graph axes at zero. Hence the rules AndyG55 lays down:
        “Vertical axis is zeroed and unbroken, horizontal axis is linear from1900 to now.”
        are meaningless and if applied generally would make many graphs useless.

        If you do it yet see the relevance just say and I will go through it again.

      • fos , your like to NOAA tells us how much ice melted ( allegedly from GRACE data ) but nowhere does it give an estimation of the total mass of ice to put this into perspective. Odd that. One would have thought that pretty essential

        Greenland lost approximately 191 gigatonnes of ice, roughly the same amount that was lost between April 2014 and April 2015.

        Now lets compare that to the value in Andy’s graph crica 25 * 10^15 t , or 25 * 10^6 Gt.

        Now, unless I’m mistaken that’s about FIVE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference, so Andy’s graph is correct.

        Now your ( NOAA ) graph, on my screen is about 20cm high. So the y = zero axis of that graph will be about 20 kilometers below my feet.

        Maybe that is why NOAA did not want to give the total ice mass and put their figures into some kind of meaningful perspective.

      • “The TSI one covers only about 4 units in 1370.”

        The difference is that we know the zero for that graph. With the NOAA graph of “ice loss” , we have no idea what the total ice mass is, so it is meaningless without further research.

        If you were to plot TSI “anomaly” on a scale of 0 to -4 that would be equally unhelpful.

      • fos,

        I can’t tell by the tone of your comments if you are being sarcastic or serious. However, large numbers look really scary to some people. According to your link, Greenland has lost an average of 269 Gt of ice per year from 2002 to 2016. 269 Gt equals approximately 0.01% of the total mass of the Greenland ice sheet. At this rate, it will take approximately 1,000 years to lose 10% of the ice sheet mass. Other references suggest that total loss of the ice sheet would lead to around 7.2-7.6 meters of sea level rise. Based on the current rate of ice sheet loss, sea level rise would be around 0.72 m, or 2.4 feet, in 1,000 years. I don’t see anything apocalyptic or dire in that, and most likely the climate will take a turn for the worse before then.

        I do like your idea of plotting graphs on photos of Beyonce, though there are others I would prefer more.

      • fos-
        I calculated approximately 725 gigatonnes of ice/ft for the area of Greenland. Equaling about four feet of lost height (average) in 15 years of warming. Because the glacier averages 1.2 miles thick, it will be totally melted (at this rate) in about 1,500 years (next crisis please). Maybe someone could double check my calculations.

        Bill Nye- 97% of the area has melted how much? 0.003mm?

      • “Phil R February 10, 2017 at 12:17 pm
        fos,

        I can’t tell by the tone of your comments if you are being sarcastic or serious. However, large numbers look really scary to some people. According to your link, Greenland has lost an average of 269 Gt of ice per year from 2002 to 2016…”

        What you posted is just fine Phil R.

        Some context and reality separate from the NASA gloom/doom.

        The measurement is by plane:
        Photo of NASA’s Gulfstream-III, outfitted with the GLISTIN-A interferometry radar on the bottom of the fuselage, takes off from Keflavik, Iceland on the morning of March 28, 2016, on its way to map Greenland glaciers and land in Thule, Greenland

        The trips are infrequent, sparse would be a better word; one in the spring and another in late summer. From two trips, NASA will know everything; sure they will.

        Their actual flight path; which is not as NASA’s animation describes.
        Photo of the potential flight path around Greenland for NASA’s Gulfstream-III, outfitted with the GLISTIN-A instrument

        This is the first year of a planned five year research.

        Worse, the research and model is another one of those research plans to “prove” the confirmation bias regarding ocean melting grounded glaciers from underneath!

        “Global sea level rise will be one of the major environmental challenges of the 21st Century. Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) will pave the way for improved estimates of sea level rise by addressing the question: To what extent are the oceans melting Greenland’s ice from below?”

        The data is not taken as “time lapse” or “satellite time lapse” rates. It is captured very infrequently and then fed into a model!

        “A second aircraft campaign, also on the NASA G-III, will be occur each year in the summer to deploy 250 expendable temperature and salinity probes along the continental shelf to measure the volume, extent, of warm, salty Atlantic Water. These data, along with fundamental new and critical observations of airborne marine gravity and ship-based observations of the sea floor geometry will provide a revolutionary data set for modeling ocean/ice interactions and lead to improved estimates of global sea level rise.”

        Again, notice how a number of inferences and assumptions are made before any data is collected.

        “Oceans Melting Greenland: Early Results from NASA’s Ocean-Ice Mission in Greenland”
        ARTICLE ABSTRACT

        Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet represents a major uncertainty in projecting future rates of global sea level rise. Much of this uncertainty is related to a lack of knowledge about subsurface ocean hydrographic properties, particularly heat content, how these properties are modified across the continental shelf, and about the extent to which the ocean interacts with glaciers. Early results from NASA’s five-year Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission, based on extensive hydrographic and bathymetric surveys, suggest that many glaciers terminate in deep water and are hence vulnerable to increased melting due to ocean-ice interaction.”

        Note the title implying the oceans are melting Greenland and the mention of early results. It is a shame that all that lead in guff and doubletalk results in waffle words; “suggest that glaciers terminate in deep water”.

      • Robert Kernodle February 10, 2017 at 12:14 pm lovely, I haven’t seen curves like that on WUWT for a long time! Now that’s what I call science! Thank you!

        Phil R February 10, 2017 at 12:17 pm ‘if you are being sarcastic or serious’.

        Phil, with respect, you have to take the NOAA induction course Climate Science 101.
        Among many other useful things you will learn how to transform a flat trend (thanks AndyG55!) into a 45° slide into doom.

        You will also learn there that it is impossible to be serious about Climate Science: its products achieve the highest levels of satire without any help from me.

        AndyG55 Wasn’t I right about Beyonce: watch Robert Kernodle and learn, my boy!

        Unfortunately, amongst all the satire, my serious question to you went under:
        ‘what were your sources of absolute ice mass, just out of interest?’. I looked in various papers describing the GRACE measurements but found no absolute number.

        Like Greg February 10, 2017 at 9:44 am I’d like to see how this was worked out.

    • “Greenland’s icy mountains are fascinating and grand,
      And wondrously created by the Almighty’s command”

      OMG !

      No ice left in the GreenLand, … how sad, brings tears in one’s eyes.

      “Oh! how awful and grand it must be on a sunshiny day
      To see one of these icy mountains in pieces give way!
      While, crack after crack, it falls with a mighty crash
      Flat upon the sea with a fearful splash. “
      W. McGonagall (I think)

      only joking, just some ‘alternative facts’

      • Nye would set the right tone if he could get his bowtie to spin like a propeller as he gave his solemn take on things.

      • A fake scientist spouting fake news based on fake data. Now if that doesn’t describe the current condition of climate science…….

      • Would you trust the judgement of a man who always wears a bow tie. People who wear bow ties all the time are invariably clowns in my experience.

      • I posted a comment on Nye’s video. This is what I wrote:

        “Greenland always melts a little bit every summer, but this year it melted almost completely…” – said Bill Nye, the scientifically illiterate guy at 0:35

        That’s complete nonsense. What that red map shows is surface area “grid blocks,” mapped by satellite, which are thought to contain some meltwater within the grid blocks. Those grid blocks are very large (I think at least 1/2 km by 1/2 km, in most cases, if memory serves). The red grid blocks are blocks which briefly contain some transient puddles, ponds, lakes, and rivers of liquid water, on top of the ice sheet. Most of that meltwater quickly refreezes.

        The ice sheet certainly didn’t “melt almost completely.” Even in the red “melted” areas, most of the surface was still actually solid ice. You can see that in this photo of a particularly large transient lake of meltwater, within a red grid block, on the Greenland ice sheet:

        At the current estimated rate of net ice melt in Greenland, it would take between 100 and 150 centuries to melt it all.

        Yes, that’s right. Not years, *centuries.*

        What’s more, we know that during the “Medieval Warm Period” (circa 900-1300) Greenland was significantly warmer than it is now. We know that because Norsemen were able to grow barley there, and it is too cold to grow barley there now, even with modern, quick-maturing cultivars.

        Yet despite the warmer temperatures during the MWP, there’s no record of any significant increase in sea-level from Greenland’s meltwater during the MWP.

        Did I get the grid block size about right?

  2. “NASA’s Oceans Melting Greenland campaign” The OMG data – Oh My God – more poorly crafted hot air/water distortion. Proof they will never stop the data fiddling!
    Very believable- NOT!

    • Great article. The fraud rolls on. Communists are so embedded in society right now that they can manipulate the little snowflakes to the point of utter stupidity.

    • Very interesting post, Loke. I’ve noticed some strange things on the Danish page in the past. A few years ago, the Mass graph for 2011/12 indicated a net positive gain of mass at the end of the year. Sometime later, they updated it to show exactly zero mass gain for 2011/12. I couldn’t find an indication of why.( The red line in this link: https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ )

      BTW, your last post on your blog was five years ago. You are like a blog cicada. And how did you remember your password?

      • Glad you enjoyed it. :-)

        I’m not really into the ice mass stuff, though I probably ought to be. DMI is a generally honest institute with some good people (like most places), but they do get caught up with the hype, and they do peddle the narrative as truth. Nevertheless, the data presented in my article seem honest and they are worked out in coroporation with Briffa & Jones of all people. Mann worked on the AMO, or so I’m told.

        They are not all bad all the time. It’s just that, when they spin the hype, they get to think of themselves as very important, and there’s extra money to be spend.

        Five years ago I decided that the Unnatural article pretty much told the story as I see it: the Greenland icecores are fairly indicative of the global temps, and they show that our time period is well within the natural variation of the Holocene.

        Now, however since our soothsayers can no longer find their warming in the global temps, they seem to be circling the arctic and the Greenland ice cap. I kid you not: the danish actor from Game of Thrones just went there – to spread awareness, you know. It’s all for their egoes and wallets, and as long as people take them seriously, they’ll just keep on going, no matter what reality might look like.

        Guess I just wanted to put in my two cents and tell people: the emperor has no clothes.

        As for the password? – I must be a genious! ;-)

  3. Just in time for the new honest science techniques, I trust….. No need to hype a 10,000yr rate as imminent disaster, nor to ignore the snowfall. As for the advancing cold AMO seawater, well, maybe their are cycles other than Mann’s pushbike on a false spike.
    But alas I note that glaciers ending in deep water are recognised as a problem, rather than a sign that we are in the Ice Ages. Cheese!

  4. This old archived book is interesting they did a lot of honest science in those days and it describes the melting in the Arctic and talks about sea temps.Zubov noted that the Jacobshavn glacier had receded by 20m between 1880-1920.Ahlman describes the Spitzebergen glacier retreat as catastrophic. Pages 170-175. http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo

  5. Apart from any political, or indeed religious, overtones, this is good for my ECS (Elephant’s Child Syndrome or insatiable curiosity). It is always interesting and indeed worth while to find out things which were unknown, and clearly the new undersea topography is interesting.

  6. The other thing that affects the melting point of ice is salt. Presumably the ice will melt more quickly in the presence of salt water than in the presence of fresh water. link

      • Salt is put on roads not to change the speed of the melt, but to enable it to melt. Salt lowers the melting point of ice.

      • He’s absolutely right. That’s why they salt roads. Salt lowers the freezing point (melting point) of water considerably.

        “Ocean water freezes just like freshwater, but at lower temperatures. Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit but seawater freezes at about 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit, because of the salt in it. When seawater freezes, however, the ice contains very little salt because only the water part freezes. It can be melted down to use as drinking water.” http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanfreeze.html

      • Mike — the effect is the same. Salt (combined with pressure from the weight of cars and friction from those same cars) melts the ice much more quickly. Nowadays, most states spray a saltwater solution on roads before a snowstorm because it helps keep the roads from getting icy in the first place.

      • I was taught that the pressure from the tires melts the ice. The salt, now in solution due to that specific melting, prevents re-freezing.

        Salt on ice without cars would not melt the ice.

      • Well solid ice on my driveway, no melting observed, temperature below freezing. Applied salt, ice eventually turned into slush then shoveled it off.

      • I did some internet searching. My belief, and also that of how skaters pressure melts the ice to create a thin, lubricating layer of water is wrong.

        Modern theory is that ice always has a thin film of liquid water, that the surface constantly changes phase, ice to water and back. Salt on it will indeed be dissolved in that liquid.

      • Most states do no such thing as spray a salt solution on roads before storms.
        Some states may do so sometimes, but ice will not work at all below a certain temp, and a lot of the places with the most snow are mostly cold enough for salt to be ineffective.
        Most places that use salt use it is the usual form…rock salt…and do so once it starts snowing, or it will just mostly be a waste of money and time.

        “Modern theory is that ice always has a thin film of liquid water, that the surface constantly changes phase, ice to water and back. Salt on it will indeed be dissolved in that liquid.”

        Hmmm…got a link for that?
        Is modern theory like new math?

  7. If this was April, I would think this article is a tongue in cheek masterpiece of “OMG! Run for the hills!” alarmism.

  8. Why does the glacier sink to the warmer water and not float within the 200 metres of colder water at the surface?

      • Then when the thickness of the ice shrinks to the point where the bottom of the ice no longer thrusts into the warmer salt water, the melting more or less stops.

  9. “The layers don’t mix much because freshwater weighs less than saltwater, so it stays afloat”

    These are scientists? I can assure them, a tonne of fresh water weighs exactly the same as a tonne of brine! It’s less dense you imbeciles, not lighter!

    • A cubic metre of salt water weighs about 2 – 3% more than a cubic metre of fresh water. So yes, heavier.

      • “Weight” is the function of mass and gravity. Not of volume and gravity. Adam is quite correct.

        OTOH, having read many papers, the researchers quite easily could have used the correct term, “is less dense than.” Once the University Propaganda Department gets hold of a paper, though, any semblance of science is thrown out the window as the first step.

        We need cleanups on far more than just one aisle in academia…

      • Than I presume that very cold fresh water is more dense than warmer fresh water. How cold has fresh water to become to sink through the warm salt water? Or is that impossible ?

      • Adam Gallon,
        Scientifically, a tonne is a unit of mass not weight, so it is wrong to say that a tonne of fresh water weighs the same as a tonne of salt water. It depends on the gravity field. However, we normally accept that the same gravity is implied and we don’t quibble about such inaccuracies. A Newton of fresh water weighs the same as a Newton of salt water, but we don’t normally use such terminology.

        Does air weigh less than water?

        If you specify a volume then yes, if you specify a mass, then no (in the same gravity). If you specify moles then no, if you specify 200C at atmospheric pressure then no. If you specify 200C at 30 bar pressure then yes again. If you don’t specify any of these it is undetermined.

        I would say the language was imprecise, but the meaning was clear enough.

      • Weight is a function of volume, density and gravity.
        If the density is lower and the volume doesn’t change, then the weight goes down.

      • I would say it was more correct to say weight was a function of mass and gravity, since density and volume change with conditions whereas mass does not. This is also the usual definition.

      • @seaice1
        “…If you specify moles, then no yes…” fixed it for you. Gram molecular weight for air, approx 28. Gram molecular weight for water, approx 18.

      • Robertv
        Water is unusual.
        Fresh Water will contract as it cools, but only down to 4 degrees C.
        Cool it some more, and it expands again – so cooler water – at say 1 degree C – will rise above water at 4 degrees c [in theory], as it is slightly less dense, so buoyant.
        In practice there will be some mixing.

        Auto, remembering grammar school physics.

      • “Does air weigh less than water?

        … If you specify moles then no,”

        DJ Hawkins –
        ““…If you specify moles, then yes…” fixed it for you. Gram molecular weight for air, approx 28. Gram molecular weight for water, approx 18.”
        as you point out, the same number of moles of air weigh more than the same number of moles of water. Does air weigh less than water? The correct answer, as I had originally put, is NO, it weighs *more* than water.

    • Adam: When I read that, I wondered how cold water traps heat from below. Yes, the brine and fresh might not mix well, but wouldn’t heat move up regardless? Especially from relatively warm to cold? Anyway, I was happy not to see a CAGW line toward the end (typically these items have a closing sentence like “Of course, man-made GW will make this worse than we thought.”).

      • ” Yes, the brine and fresh might not mix well, but wouldn’t heat move up regardless?”
        Heat rises in fluids dues to convection – the warm fluid is less dense than the cold and so rises. If the warm water is more dense due to salinity it will not rise.

      • Conduction will presumably occur, but I don’t think there is any preference for “up”, and will be much slower than convection.

      • Would there not be another factor in place here? The Glaciers are “flowing” downhill and have continuous mass building up behind them? I would think the difference of fresh and salt water have little impact on the depth of the glacier in the ocean to me it would be largely impacted by flow rates and the mass that is pushing the glacier and the depth of the water that it is going into. It must vary with each glacier and have a larger influence. I am not an expert so I might be missing the point here.

      • asybot: You’ve got that right! Even if a lot of down-flowing ice is melting, a comparable amount of water is evaporating and replacing that ice with snow – to become ice. Sea level rise? Not so much!

  10. The ice must be growing, shrinking or staying the same.

    The chances of it staying the same are minimal. Unless there was a strong negative feedback that’s never been noticed.

    So, is it likely to be gaining ice since the LIA or losing ice?

    • I’m of opinion it is likely gaining ice because more rain means more accumulation.

      However, existing data adjusted with GIA shows losing ice at a slow pace. The satellite based data is short, so I don’t trust it much, though.

    • My fellow Courtney: Well, several real climate scientists discovered some grids had poor coverage in 1600 A.D., and after some very robust infilling… snap! There was no LIA!! Verified in tree rings from Irkusk, so that’s settled. So man is melting Greenland is the only possible explanation we can leap to. As our favorite Griff will tell you, take my Arctic, please?!
      sarc off.

      • Paul C
        Was there really more than one tree ring from Irkutsk?

        But I am sure it is much, much, worse than we thought, so sent much, much more grant money.

        Auto – being a tad /Sarc, for the benefit of our much appreciated Mods.

  11. There are some Antarctic studies done recently as well on melting of the glaciers underwater.
    The funny thing is all these studies are done in late Summer.
    Why?
    Because that is the only time the ships can get in close to the glacier edges.
    Because that is the only time there is any meltwater present.
    The whole concept is ridiculous.
    The glaciers form on land and roll down and into the sea.
    The ice under the sea on the bedrock is under continual pressure to rise up and break off, hence there is a limit to how far out an ice sheet can extend with any real depth.
    So for 10 months of the year there are ice sheets present for many kilometres
    These gradually melt away allowing the warmer deeper currents to come closer to the glaciers as Summer develops. The ice melting in SUmmer is mainly due to heating of water and ice at the edges by the sun.
    No way “warm water currents hundreds of meters deeper” being able to melt the several meters thick surface ice is there.
    Melt water from the Greenland glaciers comes from heating of the glaciers and surface ice and snow (non glacial) by the sun. the deep sea warmer currents certainly do not jump onto land and melt them there. there are maps, (Arctic Sea Ice blog graphs check) showing the large amount of melt water that runs off from the land areas of Greenland during late Summer.
    No mention that most of the melt water measured comes from land, is there?
    Now when the sea surface ice has melted away the warm currents do get close to the underside of the Glaciers. Note the surface waters are now quite warm relatively speaking and melting the front and upper part of the sea immersed glacier front.
    The deeper waters are only now able to get in and melt the lower parts.
    Note this does not weaken the ice, it removes part of the upthrust pressure when it melts it.
    This happens every year whether he world is warming or notFOr the next 10. Months the Glacier rolls forwards again replacing the lost ice.
    Now as for the we detected melt water 126 miles away, what a blinding observation. Ain’t happens every year it always spreads this far and it is 90 melt water from the land, not the glacier edges in the sea.
    “Data are dramatically increasing knowledge of how the little thought so called Arctic specialists have put into the melting of ice sheets and how much scare tactics they need to put into puffing up natural glacier melt cycles.
    Disclaimer This is part rant and may include some alternative fact science and hyperbole, but not much.

    • +1 Angech. Made a comment earlier that wasn’t nearly as detailed as yours but implying a similar process. if that was a rant I need to learn how!

  12. The OMG data have enough detail that researchers are beginning to pinpoint the ice-loss risk for individual glaciers along the coast, according to principal investigator Josh Willis of JPL.

    So the principal investigator is Josh Willis. Here are some links to help you understand who he is:

    Correcting Ocean Cooling

    And:

    • Incomplete. I’ve noticed USA government sources mask or distort information. This seems to be a common theme under any president, but Obama had such a mania about global warming the ones which went completely batty were the NOAA, NASA, and EPA pages.

      I’m concerned because trump and those around him seem to be pathological liars, therefore we may see these pages turned into absolute trash.

      • I’m concerned because trump and those around him seem to be pathological liars, therefore we may see these pages turned into absolute trash.

        I’ve noticed USA government sources mask or distort information. This seems to be a common theme under any president, but Obama had such a mania about global warming the ones which went completely batty were the NOAA, NASA, and EPA pages.

        Seems to me even you already know the ones there are absolute trash now. Maybe Trump will fix them. There is no co2 problem.

      • Griff will probably be disputing the authority of the Danish Meteorological Institute pretty soon. I mean, like the way he/she questioned whether Dr. Susan Crockford was at all qualified to discuss the nature of polar bears.

      • There is no reason to question the credentials or capabilities of the DMI. The link is about the *surface* mass balance. This is not the total mass balance. As it says on that DMI page:

        “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet.”

        The surface mass balance is NOT the total mass balance. The total mass balance cannot be determined from observations of surface alone.

        What is the total mass balance? From the same DMI site:
        “Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

      • “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

        https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

        and yes, it has snowed exceptionally this year… you might ask why and what that means in terms of weather patterns this winter over the arctic and the trend in the climate.

      • “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

        Yep, but what does that mean? Calving is driven by the gravitational flow of ice. More accumulation, more flow, more calving. Less accumulation, less flow, less calving. Is one decade worth of observations really sufficient to determine climate or ice sheet balance?

    • Griff, could you please comment on:

      “If anyone thinks it is incorrect, produce your own and show where mine is incorrect.”
      (Andy G graph in early comments)

      • See my comment above. Correct does not mean appropriate. It is simply more appropriate to use a different scale. Both are correct in one sense, but starting the axis at zero is incorrect because it makes the graph useless.

      • Seaice1, the AndyG graph is indeed useless for the purpose of alarmism – for another wiev, the 200 Gt anually mass loss is no more than 0,01 % of total ice mass.
        Do we know the reason for that mass loss?
        Do we know the long-term trend?
        Would a 1% mass loss cause any direct problems?
        With 0,01 % per year, how long time would it take to reach 1%?

      • Andys graph is quite simple: The total ice mass is shown as 2,4 *10^15 ton since year 1900, all changes within the thickness of the line until present time.

      • AndyG’s graph is a horizontal line, with the rule that the Y axis must be unbroken and start at zero. I showed a TSI graph to illustrate this is an arbitrary and unhelpful rule.

        Bengt, your questions are all very interesting, but not relevant t the point that the graph is useless because we cannot see the loss. Graphs are plotted to help us visualize the data to help us understand. AndyG’s arbitrary rules do not take us towards greater understanding.

      • Seaice: what loss? Is it relevant to you if your wallet holds 100.000 USD or 99.999 ? Or a “loss” of one cent per year?
        Methinks that it important to see the broader picture.

      • so much worming and squirming from slosh1.

        Hilarious to watch… You are making a FOOL of yourself yet again, slosh1.

      • Andy, I´m thinking of Darrel Huff and George Orwell.
        (How to lie with statistics and 1984 for clarity)

    • Griff, do you think that Greenland’s ice melt is anthropogenic and catastrophic? It has melted down before, likely in the way it is now doing. Was it bad for humans back then? Which humans? All of them? Some of them? If global warming is so bad which part of the interstadial/stadial slopes should we attempt to stabilize and “pin” down so that we don’t have to go through this current terrible condition or the icy troughs? And how do you propose we do that?

      Or is this back and forth you play, your way of engaging us in a conversation that is really about how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

    • Griff

      You need to get some perspective. By far the largest part of the melt happened in the first part of the 20th century before the rise in CO2, according to the IPCC, had any impact on temperatures.

      For example:

      “[T]he retreat of the glaciers after about 1925 became rapid. It was almost entirely during the [pre-1950] twentieth century warming that the Alpine glaciers disappeared from the valley floors up into the mountains. Similarly great retreats occurred in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland, in the Americas, and on high mountains near the equator.” — H.H. Lamb Climate, History, and the Modern World (1982), pg. 248

      Perhaps you are aware of the recent paper on Greenland melting (Fernandez-Fernandez et al 2017).

      :
      “The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts. Stötter et al. (1999) indicate that the coldest period after the LIA was from the early 1960s to the mid-1970s, when temperatures fell to levels equivalent to the warmest recorded in the 19th century. This cooling is the reason given by Caseldine (1983, 1985a, 1985b, 1988) to explain the advance of the Gljúfurárjökull between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s … Studies of aerial photographs and satellite images show that the glacier snouts have retreated by more than 1300 m on average since the LIA maximum (considered to be AD 1898 in Gljúfurárjökull and AD 1868 in both Western and Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull), with an altitudinal rise of more than 100 m. The retreat accelerated rapidly (15.3 m yr−1) during the first half of the 20th century. In the second half of the 20th century, the retreat decelerated considerably, reflected in the lowest values around 1985 (5.2 m yr−1) and a trend shift in 1994, with an advance observed in Gljúfurárjökull. … The retreat rate intensified in the period 2000–2005 compared with 1994–2000, but did not reach the rates recorded before 1946.” my emphasis

      If you look at Table 1 of the paper, the paper found that the average retreat of glacier was some 1334m of which some 1062m of retreat had taken place by 1946.

      As I have point out to you many times before, apart from one year, the warmest period in Greenland these last 150 years was 1940, and in Iceland there has been no warming since the 1940s.

      Nothing unusual is happening in Greenland

      • Richard, what scares me more is how rapidly all these glaciers were replaced since 1925, just recall how quickly “Greenland” became depopulated when the Vikings were there for a short period of time , to me, let to their demise. Not only was their Western expansion halted but their trade with other nations along their EASTERN routes ( through Russia) collapsed as well.

  13. (posted some of this earlier, but it is nowhere to be found)

    “Greenland’s icy mountains are fascinating and grand,
    And wondrously created by the Almighty’s command”

    Now it is said: No ice left in the GreenLand, …
    OMG !
    So sad, brings tears in one’s eye…

    “Oh! how awful and grand it must be on a sunshiny day
    To see one of these icy mountains in pieces give way!
    While, crack after crack, it falls with a mighty crash
    Flat upon the sea with a fearful splash. “
    W. McGonagall

    • Can someone please explain: Where exactly is the ice melting ?.Is it from the central land mass ,or just around the coastal areas . I believe glaciers move all the time,slowly ,’downhill.’ .Presumably they are not completely glued to the land ,which suggests some degree of geothermal heat under the ice mass , thus allowing them to ‘slip’ .eventually into the ocean .

      • Ice melts at the surface in summer. Snow also accumulates at the surface. The difference gives us the surface mass balance. It snows more than it melts, so the surface mass balance is positive.

        As you say, glaciers flow down hill. Icebergs break off and melt. The total mass balance is surface plus icebergs. The loss through icebergs is greater than the gain through surface accumulation, so the total mass balance is negative, as far as we can tell.

      • Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

      • ***The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.***
        **The loss through icebergs is greater than the gain through surface accumulation, so the total mass balance is negative, as far as we can tell.**

        As far as we can tell. Sure, always the same story from the same side. Remember, the glaciers were disappearing in the 1920’s at an alarming rate.

      • It really is sad how Griffie actually believes that 10 years of data will give us any meaningful trends in a world with weather cycles that are measured in 60 to several hundred years.

      • Yes, Greenland is losing mass because of calving. And calving is caused by CO2 exactly how? If the icecap were becoming thicker and thicker, would calving increase or would it decrease? If warming from CO2 (in the atmosphere) is somehow affecting the icecap, it would have to travel through the surface of the ice to make any change in the ice. But the surface shows no net melting and very rarely and only in certain areas does it reach as high as the freezing point. The data show snow and ice accumulating. Tricky stuff that CO2 — but whatever it is doing it is not melting Greenland, and it will be hard to explain how it is increasing calving.

        Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming… It is a catastrophe which cannot be observed, has not been demonstrated to be human caused, does not appear to be global, and has not warmed things in almost 20 years. Nonetheless, be AFRAID! Be very AFRAID!

      • Griff,

        Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

        1) Not sure what your point was agreeing with and restating what seaice1 said.

        Ice melts at the surface in summer. Snow also accumulates at the surface. The difference gives us the surface mass balance. It snows more than it melts, so the surface mass balance is positive.

        As you say, glaciers flow down hill. Icebergs break off and melt. The total mass balance is surface plus icebergs. The loss through icebergs is greater than the gain through surface accumulation, so the total mass balance is negative, as far as we can tell.

        …Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

        2) So the f*ck what? you blindly copy numbers as if they mean anything, but never seem to try to engage your brain and try to explain what you seem to think the significance of some random number means.

        As noted a few times above, 200 Gt is roughly 0.01%, or 1/10,000th (if I have my decimals right) of the total volume of the ice sheet. That means that it would take 1,000 years for only 10% of the ice sheet to melt at the current rate, and it is much more likely that the climate will take a turn for the worse over the next 1,000 years rather than happily moseying along as it is now. Not sure where your irrational fear of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet comes from.

      • Kinda cool that you can embed quotes within quotes though, didn’t know that (though I might be showing my ignorance of html).

    • Funny, but how about reindeer/caribou, Arctic hares, Arctic foxes, Bowhead whales, narwhals, belugas and musk oxen, plus at least seasonally a bunch of birds?

  14. So, they created the “Oceans Melting Greenland” project and found that…. wait for it.. the ocean was melting Greenland!! Fancy that. This science is definitely down to new California standards.

  15. “the ice-loss risk for individual glaciers”. Do scientists also speak of “ice-gain risk” for glaciers?

  16. Glaciers flow into the sea. It’s what they do. How fast they melt once they get there is of no interest. They will melt.

    ‘virtually the only measurements Morlighem had of these critical landscapes’

    Critical? Nah, just landscapes.

  17. My question is why are JPL employees investigating Greenland glaciers? Is it because they need a reference for the one thing in the world that is the slowest compared to something ‘Jet Propelled’? When did JPL crawl up to the AGW trough?

    • Melting ice transfers mass of water from high latitudes towards the equator. This affects earth’s rate of rotation by a very small amount (few fractions of a millisecond), an important factor in numerous calculations that the JPL is responsible for.

    • I suppose when JPL hired that jackass. Please, I don’t want to lose any respect for Cal Tech and JPL. I thought they might just be the last bastion of hope for common sense, logic and actual, real science.

    • Yes, the last two years and the beginning of this year give even the hope that a trend reversal was achieved. Namely, the increase in ice due to increased precipitation could approximately compensate ice loss by melting at the foot of the glaciers. It can also be due to the decadally fluctuating precipitation, whether the Greenland ice mass loss and how large it is. At the present time, the mass of the melted ice is not a cause for hysteria in relation to the mass of the ice stock, nor is it the case with Antarctic ice.

    • It gained a tad more to around 125 Gt above average. This is its highest point above the average line to date. I am very curious to see what is going to happen this summer. Will the smb stay above the trend line into and through the summer melt season?

  18. The GIS grew a lot during the LIA. No surprise that it might be shrinking a bit now that some 320 years have passed since the Maunder Minimum depths of the LIA.

  19. Same old , same old Greenland glaciers melting.

    1952, Greenland

    “Cmdr. Simpson said:
    “Glaciers have recently been
    melting steadily at an in-
    creasing rate. We will make
    tests gauging the exact speed”

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/49247357?searchTerm=greenland%20melting&searchLimits=

    1950-
    First, its climate is getting warmer. This is not a century change but something
    that is going on almost before your eyes. The temperature of the sea water is up several degrees, Freuchen said, the seals are retreating, and codfish and mosquitoes are advancing. This ls helping to cause a revolution in the lives of the native
    Eskimo.
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/57081978?searchTerm=greenland%20melting&searchLimits=

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/49247357?searchTerm=greenland%20melting&searchLimits=

    1940- GREENLAND GLACIERS MELTING
    Examiner (Launceston, Tas. : 1900 – 1954) Thursday 1 February 1940 p 9 Article

    Greenland’s Climate Becoming Milder
    The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 – 1954) Monday 6 May 1940 p 5 Article

    1930 – LOCAL AND GENERAL Greenland’s Ice Cap Melting
    North-Eastern Advertiser (Scottsdale, Tas. : 1909 – 1954) Tuesday 18 November 1930 p 2 Article

    1923- NORTH POLE MELTING. MANY GLACIERS VANISHED.
    Daily Mercury (Mackay, Qld. : 1906 – 1954) Saturday 7 April 1923 p 9 Article

    1910 – RECEDING GLACIERS.
    The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal (NSW : 1888 – 1954) Wednesday 28 September 1910 p 4 Article
    … timber. The Jacobshaven glac-ier in Greenland has retreated four miles since 1850,

    • The return from the LIA. A completely natural process. But people have always tended to overstate. 1920, 1950 and even today. Dramas sell better than documentaries.

    • I measured that this morning. It is right around 125+ Gt above average. This being the 3rd winter in a row where the winter trend has been above average, I would hazard a guess that something in the climate system has changed. Perhaps this is related to the concept of the polar see saw effect.. Antarctica went on a tear for above average sea ice for 4 years before crashing back to average around mid 2015. Maybe it is Greenland’s turn to experience a similar growth for a period of some years.

  20. Ice is melting. Melting, melting. Oh what a wicked world. Who would have thought driving SUVs could destroy my beautiful icy-ness. Melting, melting……

  21. So the claim is, the Greenland ice cap is melting at the rate of 0.01% per year. This implies that the ice mass is measured to an accuracy of 1 part in 10,000 or better. Is this plausible? I think not.

      • So is the accuracy of that measurement better than 1 in 10,000 or not? Is the whole icecap measured? What is the baseline the measurement is made against? What are the errors in the measurement? If a trend was measurable how do know it is not a cyclical variation governed by an unknown variable or variables.
        If you think this minute change in the volume of the Greenland icecap is related to composition of the atmosphere where is your proof?
        Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, if you have none you are speculating.

  22. Seaice1: if you make the y-axis of your solar cycle graph to start from zero you get the same curve as plotting the mean absolute global temperature y-axis starting from zero. Because the global mean temperature is strictly dependent on solar activity, the graphs shoul be equal. No need for greenhouse.

  23. Interesting the discussion on absolute versus relative ice mass changes in Greenland or for solar cycle,but psychologically the presentation or framing has a big impact on how people think of things,advertisers and propagandists have known this a long time. E.g . Kahneman and Tversky, Choices, Values, and Frames (1983) and same in prior papers which i will not look up correct cite …
    “Imagine that you are about to purchase a jacket
    for $125 and a calculator for $15. The calculator salesman
    informs you that the calculator you wish to buy is on sale
    for $ 10 at the other branch of the store, located 20 minutes
    drive away. Would you make a trip to the other store?”
    – 68% of the respondents were willing to drive to save $5 on the $15 calculator (66.67% by price of item),
    Now change to calculator with price of $125 and can do same drive to purchase it at $120 with jacket set price at $15 (00.04% by price of item),but still same absolute $5 saved by trip.
    – now only 29% of respondents were willing to make the same trip to save $5 (on a $125 item).

    Try the same on CO2 at 300 to 400 ppm, a 33.3% rise, or just a 00.01% rise as percent of atmosphere being minor trace gas as it is relative to Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon adding up to 100% w/o the rounding.

    Now what gets me is that while there has been all this focus on CO2, Oxygen in atmosphere it largely ignored. More CO2 means less O2 and O3 as the O which is formerly in atmosphere is combined with C and released as CO2 when burning fossil fuels (or cows farting). IF you look at Oxygen, the percent of atmosphere does not change much – in percentage terms – alike CO2, but in absolute terms the decrease in atmospheric O2 is comparable to increase in C02. Both impact outgoing absorption in the infrared range according to greenhouse theory.

    The relative change in O seems insignificant relative to self or atmosphere,but the absolute quantity of Oxygen trending down is completely comparable to rise in CO2.
    No one talks about reduced oxygen reducing greenhouse effect (or theoretically canceling out effect of CO2). Ignorance is bliss when getting funding to study one while ignoring other, but I have not done any serious search for papers on this (theoretical greenhouse effects or reduced oxygen molecules [turned into CO2]) and only know the cognitive bias or psychology – a candle seems to emit much more light in a dark room than in a well lit one. Relative change in atmospheric Oxygen is not much being at 21% , but absolute terms its decline is similar to CO2 rise. Enlighten me if know more.

      • Robert,
        It is not the Ozone or O3 you list as 0.000004 ppm in graph, but O2 which is 20.95%. Again, O2 in relative terms has not changed, still 20.95%, but in absolute terms, the quantity of O2 in the atmosphere has been declining at a greater rate than the quantity of CO2 has been rising.
        (We know or have studied O3 enough, concentrated in the upper atmosphere where incoming UV converts O2 to O3 and also blocks the UV, lets just look at O2 which is mainly in lower atmosphere)
        See, O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising
        http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

        Now, if we theoretically accept O2 as a greenhouse gas, it’s reduction in the atmosphere would theoretically counteract rising CO2 since it also absorbs in the outgoing IR band (O2 a few microns less wavelength than CO2, yet overlaps H2O less than CO2).
        I see almost nothing on this discussed, the reduction in O2 is almost completely ignored.


        I would assume O2 is rising ground level since CO2 has increased green plant life producing it by satellite observations, and its existence in atmosphere is traceable to plant life starting 600 mil. years ago, but now is falling in molecules terms for atmosphere at a similar rate that CO2 rises.

        Why is not the absolute decrease in atmospheric O2 which is more than quantity rise in CO2 ever discussed? You add a few molecules of CO2 and take out the same or more of O2. Seems alarmists are ignoring latter (and as in alarmist ice age scare years back, remember looking at impacts of soot or aerosols in atmosphere blocking incoming radiation and ignoring CO2?, this is flip version with CO2 and O2 for claimed outgoing radiation).
        This is not my area. Is O2 absorption nonlinear and saturated similar to CO2 at higher levels for outgoing IR so it does not matter? Anyone care to answer/comment?

        Magic tricks or illusions are often based on visual concentration or focus on one area to hide something else going on.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKry81bf2qw (need to watch twice to see what was missed)

        You see bad statistics all the time, even in peer reviewed journals, abet more in mass stream media or think tanks churning out propaganda masked as science where the have to produce evidence to support a preconceived bias. Correlation is not causality. I would assume a high correlation between those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism and AGW believers despite very good scientific evidence opposite. There are many left out variables. The atmosphere and temperature is a very complex system with hundreds of intercorrelated variables, not just CO2.

    • This concept of absolute vs. relative gets lost most dramatically around attribution to SST. The argument (see Karl, 2016) is that AWG is warming the oceans and this is where the man-made warming signature can be found.

      Similar to your reference around absolute changes in oxygen, the uncertainty in evaporation is greater than the entire CO2 “forcing” increase from a 100ppm increase. Thus, a puff of wind can cool the ocean more than all industrial CO2 can warm it.

      “The Air-Ocean Interface
      Water is almost transparent to visible radiation and sunlight can penetrate down through
      clear ocean waters to depths of ~100 meters [Hale & Querry, 1973]. The light is absorbed
      mainly by the rather weak overtones of the water infrared vibrations and converted into heat. The oceans cool through a combination of evaporation and long wave infrared (LWIR) emission from the surface [Yu et al, 2008]. The First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation Any flux difference is converted into a change in ocean temperature. Over most of the LWIR spectral region, the ocean surface exchanges radiation with the atmosphere. On average, there is a slight exchange heating of the atmosphere by the ocean. This net heat transfer depends on the thermal gradient or air -ocean temperature difference as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. LWIR emissive cooling occurs within a relatively small spectral emission window in the 8 to 12 micron region (~1200 to 800 wavenumbers). The penetration depth of LWIR radiation into the ocean is less than 100 micron, about the width of a human hair.

      Small increases in LWIR emission from the atmosphere are converted into increases in
      ocean surface evaporation that are too small to detect in the wind driven fluctuations
      observed in surface evaporation. Between 1977 and 2003, average ocean evaporation
      increased by 11 cm per year from 103 to 114 cm per year. This was caused by an increase in average wind speed of 0.1 meters per second [Yu, 2007]. The uncertainty in the estimate was 2.7 cm per year which is larger than the upper ‘clear sky’ limit to the evaporation produced by a 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration over 200 years. It is simply impossible for a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to have any effect on ocean temperatures. Figure 4 illustrates the basic energy transfer processes at the air-ocean interface. Figure 5 shows the spectral properties of water in the visible and the IR. Figure 6 shows ocean evaporation and the effect of changes in wind speed. An increase of 1.7 Watts per square meter in downward LWIR ‘clear sky’ radiation translates into an upper limit increase in evaporation rate of 2.4 cm per year. ”

      http://venturaphotonics.com/GlobalWarming.html

  24. The trouble about this whole the-ocean-is-melting-greenland concept is that on the whole the Greenland ice and the ocean don’t come into contact. The Greenland icecap is almost completely on ground higher than sea-level and reaches the ocean on a broad front only in a few areas in the northeast and northwest. That NASA image at the top is from Melville Bay, which has the longest stretch of icefront calving into the ocean. As a matter of fact I think they are probably quite disappointed by their results since they show that even a short retreat of the ice even in this area would expose an ice-free coast and more or less stop calving.
    There is apparently remarkably little fjord morphology in the mapped area which suggests that the ice-front has been very stable in this sector. This fits in well with recent results from the Camp Century ice-core that show that the ice-front has never retreated more than 100 kilometers in the Melville bay area during at least the last million years.

  25. Robertv February 10, 2017 at 5:05 am…

    Than I presume that very cold fresh water is more dense than warmer fresh water. How cold has fresh water to become to sink through the warm salt water? Or is that impossible ?
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Fresh water at 4 degrees C has an density so close to 1000kg/cubic metre it doesn’t matter.
    Fresh water that is warmer or cooler has a lower density.

    Seawater has a salinity of around 3.5% [it varies a bit]. That is 3.5% of the mass of seawater is made up of dissolved salts. Seawater at 4 degrees C has a density of about 1028kg/cubic metre.
    Seawater at a temperature of 80 degrees C has a density of 998kg/cubic metre.

    So for cold fresh water to sink through warm seawater you would require a situation where fresh water at 4 degrees C was overlying seawater at 80 degrees C……….not an impossible situation but rather unlikely.

    • In practice meltwater always stays at the top until mixing with the salt water. On the other hand cold very salt water will sink, even through colder but less salt water. Google “brine rejection”.

Comments are closed.