Guest post by David Middleton
Deep Bore Into Antarctica Finds Freezing Ice, Not Melting as Expected
Scientists will leave sensors in the hole to better understand the long-term changes in the ice, which may have big implications for global sea level.
By Douglas Fox
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 16, 2018
Scientists have peered into one of the least-explored swaths of ocean on Earth, a vast region located off the coast of West Antarctica.
[…]
SURPRISING FINDS
The surprises began almost as soon as a camera was lowered into the first borehole, around December 1. The undersides of ice shelves are usually smooth due to gradual melting. But as the camera passed through the bottom of the hole, it showed the underside of the ice adorned with a glittering layer of flat ice crystals—like a jumble of snowflakes—evidence that in this particular place, sea water is actually freezing onto the base of the ice instead of melting it.
“It blew our minds,” says Christina Hulbe, a glaciologist from the University of Otago in New Zealand, who co-led the expedition. The Ross Ice Shelf is considered more stable, at present, than many of West Antarctica’s other floating shelves—and this observation could help explain that: if a few inches of sea water periodically freezes onto the bottom of its ice, this could buffer it from thinning more rapidly.
[…]
“It blew our minds”… Of course it blew their minds. It always blows their minds when it’s not worse than previously expected. The climate science community probably has more blown minds per capita than UC Berkeley did in 1969.
Of course it blows their minds when things don’t go according to the “global warming, climate change, etc.” script. Pathetic.
CAGW dogma has afflicted legions of true believers with mental obtundity — they have surpassed the dream-like state of mental lethargy.
Fantastic word: ob·tun·di·ty [ob túndətee]
NOUN
dulled or blunted consciousness
Never saw that one before. Thanks!!
It blew their minds – because they were surprised to be suddenly confronted by their stark ignorance about the reasons for climate change. They were convinced they knew it all – but, Oops, they didn’t. Good lesson for a young scientist – hope they heed it.
I think the scientific report on these surprising findings is to exclaim “Eureka!”.
Are you really just saying that sea level is not going to rise 1.2 metres in the next 200 years and we should no longer worry about scariness? What is climate change without scariness? I guess it is like climate change alarm with truthiness.
One man’s truthiness is another man’s scariness.
One man’s freezing ice shelf is another man’s catastrophic drop in sea level draining the mangrove swamps and killing the exposed Great Barrier Reef.
it is interesting how sea level drop-iness and death-iness are the same as ris-iness and death-iness. Is it time to introduce the term “climate changiness”?
Coming soon to the English Oxford Dictionary:
Climate Changiness: Noun, informal; the quality of seeming or being felt to be climate change, even if not necessarily true.
It’s interesting what the Nat Geo article didn’t say…this from another source:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/100225196/kiwi-researchers-bore-into-antarctic-ice-to-find-new-clues-about-the-warming-oceans
You gave me an idea, Crispin. Climate Change alone doesn’t carry sufficient impact. From now on, I’m going to call it:
Scary Climate Change
Yep, excessive Group Think is very pervasive. Nice to see reality pull someone up with jerk.
C’mon Nature: let’s see more of this! (blown klimate scientist minds, that is, not ice! )
indeed. the following passage is a great example of why a good education does not necessarily mean someone is clever.
“and this observation could help explain that: if a few inches of sea water periodically freezes onto the bottom of its ice, this could buffer it from thinning more rapidly.”
no shit sherlock. if the ice is freezing it is not melting, therefore getting thicker, not “thinning less rapidly”. i wonder if the thickness of the ice will ever match that of some climate “scientists”.
Hang on a minute. If the science is settled why are these people still in employment?
“KRM February 25, 2018 at 10:01 am”
I wonder how long that article will stay up at Stuff? I recall in about 2000 an article on Stuff stating that temperatures of NZ were no warmer than they were 40 years before. The article didn’t stay up on Stuff for long.
If something blows your mind, or when you are shocked by what you experience, you do know or understand what is going on; so far for scientists.
It probably also blew their support from the ‘climate change’ religion!
Next we’ll see some sort of backtracking/excuse; a “hide the freezing” campaign followed by science journal editors denigrated and sacked if they don’t follow the alarmist mantra.
“It blew our funds!”
“It probably also blew their support from the ‘climate change’ religion!”
Naaahhhh. Never happen.
The new findings will most likely be shelved.
it blew our minds right out our fundaments – gaia is a denihilist!
Actually it was probably something more like a tiny soap bubble popping.
We had the Ship of Fools a while back, now we have the Ship of Imbeciles.
‘It blew our minds’ ! LOL, that is not really saying much frankly having seen what we have all seen from the CAGWarmistas over the years. Not a big budget to blow there frankly.
‘It blew our minds’ – speaks volumes, eh :0)
All that is needed are listeners, open minded listeners.
Good luck with that.
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/AntarcticaIceShelves.jpg?aba085
This article gives no context for the “blew our minds” quote, it stood alone. She could have been referring to the beauty of the ice crystals.
‘“It blew our minds”… Of course it blew their minds. It always blows their minds when it’s not worse than previously expected. The climate science community probably has more blown minds per capita than UC Berkeley did in 1969.’
This is prejudicial commentary. It not only tells you what to think, it tells you to believe someone else thinks a certain way. This is an example of the ways to create propagate and nurture animosity, misunderstanding and division. That seems to be the only point of the publication. Oh, and to imply that the freezing on the bottom blows warmist theories to bits, and that’s disappointing – a very strange idea indeed!
Just sayin’ is all.
Try reading the post…
Troll funds appear to be drying up. As a result there are fewer trolls available to cover the major science sites.
The result is that they no longer have time to actually read the articles they are trolling.
So: Kristi. If you object to ‘prejudicial commentary’ – there must be many hundreds of thousands of your objections to commentary that attributes to ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ events and findings which could have any other reason. This is, after all the norm with ‘warmista’ articles, and research. I searched and failed to find a single objection from you. Did I miss them (and if so, links)? or are you being prejudiced in your objections? It’s only prejudicial if one side does it?
Kristi-
being part of the herd can’t protect you- you are what protects the herd. you are the slow and weak one sacrificed while they escape the tyrannical reality that can’t be denied without victims just like you
if you ever get some first hand experience of nature in the raw, your mind will be confronted with contradictions to all the second hand stories you’ve placed your faith in and to which you cling so desperately in order to disguise your incapacity.
Kristi, maybe someday your mind will blow and you will see the light. This is called a damascene experience. Look it up and become enlightened.
“a few inches of sea water periodically freezes onto the bottom of its ice” on the bottom of hundreds of metres of ice…
Meh.
Meantime at the other end something really weird is happening.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
Daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel, as a function of the day of year.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/
@zazove…here is the reason for that big spike in arctic temps. This wind moving up the Atlantic is the first strong pulse of surface winds to punch into the Arctic since last September. You can see the obvious consequences of the surface wind. This started 8 days ago, …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=6.95,87.48,672/loc=19.845,82.335
Also of interest, look at what happened to the Greenland smb gain over the last 8 days as a result of the surface wind shift.
Go and look through the last few years goldminor. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.php
You warm wind has been blowing for years now.
zazove
Nothing weird at all. This is the typical North Atlantic meridional gyre weather pattern associated with long term global cooling.
As goldminor shows- we have a meandering jet stream (time stamped 26Feb2018 1200Z) with a classic gyre elongated north-south sending snow onto the coast of east Greenland and warm air over the Arctic Ocean.
According to the troll, the only reason why daily readings would EVER be different from the 30 year average, is CO2.
No other explanation is allowed.
David, of course I read the post. I also read the article. Surely you are familiar with the journalistic tactic of throwing in a quote that in its context could have a different meaning than its given?
But my point is that you used the “blow our minds” to suggest that scientists don’t like to find out the truth. That is commentary that is not warranted by the article, it is yours, and it tells people how to see the article. Do you see what I mean? It’s your choice, of course, but it seems that people ought to become more aware of the way that they are influenced. I believe this is just as important on the left – I despise CNN and others like it, for example.
I want people to be able to talk, and that means getting rid of some of the baggage we’ve been conditioned to believe, such as the Other is the enemy. I believe what I do based on my own exploration of the topic. If I wanted groupthink I wouldn’t hang out here. I recognize I’m biased, though, just like everyone else.
Even those who insult me I try not to see as enemies. I think if we met face-to-face some of us might get along.
I provided the full context of the quote.
Gnomish: “if you ever get some first hand experience of nature in the raw,”
Um, like living in a tent for 3 summers a 45 min boat ride from anyone, hiking kilometers in old growth forest every day to collect data for a model of forest dynamics? Or doing years of PhD research in tropical rainforest? Backpacking the Sierras? My love of nature and science are major forces in my life.
Dave Freer: “If you object to ‘prejudicial commentary’ – there must be many hundreds of thousands of your objections to commentary that attributes to ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ events and findings which could have any other reason.”
You missed the point. It’s about characterizing scientists as people who are looking for affirmation instead of the truth. There is nothing in the article to indicate this, it’s wholly in the commentary.
yes, kristi. something like that.
but look with your own eyes and see what’s there instead of what you were told.
have you noticed the color of the sun, for instance? it’s been there your whole life.
Kristi, the journalist didn’t say that, it was the GLACIOLOGIST who was QUOTED as saying,
“It blew our minds,” says Christina Hulbe
well, the cold is what we know we should expect from global warming
and we might miss the acidity cuz of the alkaline pH
and we know the sea is rising but it’s masked by oceans sinking
and we might just miss the thinning cuz of the silly stuff got thick
oh, suzanna
It’s WORSE that we thought!!!!
Not sure why, but surely someone will think of a reason…
Easy.
I don’t even accept science, but even I can develop a proof that it’s worse than we thought:
1. The unanticipated freezing means we know less than we thought.
2. So our SLR predictions just became less certain than we thought.
3. But by Lewandowsky’s Uncertainty Principle, the more uncertain the future, the worse it is guaranteed to be. (Or to quote the children’s version of the Principle: Uncertainty is not Your Friend.)
3b. Ergo this mindblowing finding is not our friend.
4. QED
The alternative is, “Cool! Maybe this explains something! This is excellent data to have, and an interesting thing to compare with other data. How fascinating! Can’t wait to get back to the lab and see what’s in the sediment sample.”
Heisenberg certainly wasn’t Einstein’s ‘friend.’
Cus there is more ice to melt causing sea level to rise even further!
Zazove: No. Nothing is going on that is unusual. The arctic anomaly happens whenever there is a persistent blocking pattern around the northern hemisphere that sets up due to an amply cold arctic which there was this winter. This causes exchange of warmer air from southerly latitude to affect the arctic, while the severe cold that built up there was exported to southerly latitudes. This is exactly why December and January were so bitterly cold in the central plains and east coast with many low temperature records broken and some snowfall records. This year is similar to the anomalous year of 1976, where atmospheric blocking due to early arctic cold led to the same anomaly. See attached for that year.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_1976.png
“amply cold arctic which there was this winter” Really?
Take a look at the last few years Chuck, http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.php
That’s a long term anomaly spiking to a weird place. Very little similarity to 1976 which spent some time below the long term average.
The (few) weather stations are on the coast of north Greenland. If the wind there is from the south east, which happens when for instance there is a blocking high over Scandinavia causing a cold spell in Europe, then the air has a few thousand miles over the Atlantic to go and warm up. The coastal stations will see a relatively warm wind coming in. Inland, on the ice shelf things are as cold as they always are. It’s the combination of wind and location that does it.
The last few years have been El Nino years, which always pump warm water up to the Arctic.
The last 30 years have been the warm side of the AMO/PDO cycle.
Of course if you are one of those trolls who actually believe that history began 5 years ago, then there is no help for you anyway.
MarkW – You might be interested in this site. http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
There’s a nice graphic of the PDO.
I thought it intriguing what was said about modeling:
“Causes for the PDO are not currently known. Likewise, the potential predictability for this climate oscillation are not known. Some climate simulation models produce PDO-like oscillations, although often for different reasons. The mechanisms giving rise to PDO will determine whether skillful decades-long PDO climate predictions are possible. For example, if PDO arises from air-sea interactions that require 10 year ocean adjustment times, then aspects of the phenomenon will (in theory) be predictable at lead times of up to 10 years. Even in the absence of a theoretical understanding, PDO climate information improves season-to-season and year-to-year climate forecasts for North America because of its strong tendency for multi-season and multi-year persistence. From a societal impacts perspective, recognition of PDO is important because it shows that “normal” climate conditions can vary over time periods comparable to the length of a human’s lifetime “.
Zazove: Your assumption is incorrect. If you read how these temperatures are produced, they are from a re-analysis done of the initialized ECMWF weather forecast model. Statistical inference is used to estimate temperature from pressures, atmospheric thickness and some observational data when evaluated as relevant to the rest of the collected data. The available data and methods are not the same for either year, but 2018 to date would be considered more accurate because data assimilation has been much improved allowing further refinement of the technique used. There is also a bias towards temperature reflected in the northern most part of the arctic due to grid points being assigned a temperature in constant .5 degree grids.
This just means you are not comparing apples to apples for either year, so the temperature estimates are not absolute in the sense that you think they are. I looked at the hemispheric patterns for both years and they are very similar from November thru mid February with pronounced high amplitude atmospheric blocking in the eastern Pacific and Atlantic which drives warmer air into the arctic from those regions and exports colder air into Europe and North America. It’s why record cold was felt with freezing temperatures all the way into Florida this winter just like in the 1976 anomalous year. The constant pressure contours are also identical for both years indicating the high latitude atmosphere was just as cold this winter as back then with the lower contour values displaced from the arctic like they have to be when a lot of cold air is exported southward from the amplified long waves.
There is nothing unusual about this and those that claim there is are spreading climate hysteria and nonsense.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Gnomish,
I can think for myself just as well as you can, I betcha. If you want to underestimate me, I don’t wish to converse.
The sun is a variety of colors. It was purple and blue at total eclipse – I got a photos of it.
you were never conversing, of course. i’ll just watch you struggle with a prolapsed narrative.
it’s the only relationship that can be had with a lolcow.
Reality rears its’ head ?
And to them ….it is looking “ugly” more and more often ….
Huxley’s Syndrome: The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
All well and good for pre-Anthropocene, pre-postnormal science. But now that scientists have invented immortal hypotheses, the question becomes: how ugly does a fact have to be to slay a zombie?
I always get a kick out of how much fossil fuel they burn to go on their ice expeditions, I read the NATGEO article, they used a twin otter aircraft to get there, and all the heat needed to bore the hole, etc.
To that end, there is this. https://scotlandagainstspin.org/2018/02/snow-ordeal-of-five-trapped-frozen-workers-is-revealed-herald/
Trying to get out there by dog team and drill the hole manually would probably use more energy. For sure, it would be way more expensive and dangerous.
1 – ‘They’ are against fossil fuels.
2 – ‘They’ realize the economics involved because ‘they’ aren’t crazy enough to try doing field work by dog team.
‘They’ don’t seem to see the disconnect between #1 and #2.
Maybe we should all go back to living in caves. We wouldnt put any CO2 in the air that way. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I forgot I remember now. I saw a movie once where it was about Man “inventing” fire. oh i guess after that we were all doomed anyway. We just should have accepted freezing to death periodically. Well at least that way we wouldnt have to put up with the greenie religion
A mind is a terrible thing to be blown.
As comedian Bob Nelson said at Dangerfield’s….” that a mind is a terrible thing and must be stopped in our lifetime.”
+1^10
No way could you do that routine today.
I did see Bob as he opened for Rodney in New Haven CT many, many years ago. After both of them I had laughed so hard my face hurt for days and days. But I tell ya, he’s alright, ya know.
At risk of being pedantic …
+1^10 = 1
Perhaps what you meant was:
+10^10
Perhaps it’s just another way of stating
10log100/2
Or
1+1-1*1/1
I saw that routine (a TV version of it) decades ago and still remember it. I never saw it again till now. Thanks!
PS It’s obvious that none you equation people ever played football. 😎
“A mind is a terrible thing to be blown”
Presumes facts not in evidence.
Don’t want to get into an equation battle so let’s just say 10 thumbs up for that one!
Tom in Florida,
You have 10 thumbs!
Perhaps you’ve imbibed one too many carbonated beverages?
(I can see the commercial now: “If you or a loved one has 10 thumbs and has consumed a CO2 laced beverage, call the law firm of….8-)
Not 10 thumbs, 10 thumbs up. That is one thumb pumped up and down 10 times…..oh oh, that one is going to get me so flak.
BTW I just got back from the beach, lovely day, water getting warmer, plenty of sun, temps in the mid 80’s F….
When a “climate scientist’s” mind is blown, what they’re really talking about is when the pressure inside the void between their ears exceeds their skull’s capacity to contain it.
The scientists havent explained that even if the Ross shelf melted as it has done thousands of times in the earths history the sea level would not rise because it is already floating on the sea. However if it melted it might affect the ice that is Antarctica land based which if melted would affect sea levels. I would like an explanation as to how melting of the Ross shelf would affect the land based Antarctic ice.
I’ve never heard a compelling explanation. They claim that hydrostatic force on the ice shelf holds back the ice sheet. Sounds like BS to me because a floating ice shelf really isn’t offering much resistance. Move your open palm through some water fast and there is a lot of resistance. But move it slowly and there is virtually none. Water doesn’t offer much resistance to a slowly moving buoyant object. It just moves out of the way. Buoyancy and currents could actually be working to pull the ice shelf from the ice sheet.
Then there’s the issue of the ice sheet catastrophically collapsing once the ice shelf melts back to the grounding line. But that doesn’t make sense either because a collapsed ice cliff will form a pile of ice that buttresses the standing cliff and keeps it from collapsing further.
The best they can do is to babble about Melt Water Pulse 1A.
My understanding is that though the ice shelf is mostly floating, parts of the ice can be “grounded” on the bottom of the ocean, thus offering resistance to the movement of the land-based glacier. Elifino, but to me that sounds like a reasonable supposition.
The grounding line is beneath the ocean surface. It’s the point where the ice sheet becomes the ice shelf
The resistance of the mass of the ungrounded ice shelf is substantial.
That said, it is still small in relation to the mass of the glaciers that form the shelf.
The alarmists are arm waving (as usual).
The implication is the grounding line is possibly advancing, not retreating, or at least not retreating if the water is so cold that no melting is occurring. If the grounding line is advancing, then more of the shelf is grounded and the ice mass on the non-floating top side can accumulate and the balance can go up…. thus slowing SLR.
That’s why they were surprised. It means the grounded portion of the shelf may be growing in mass. Opposite their fake models predictions that rely on warming scenarios that are also fake.
The Wilkins ice shelf breakup was due to ocean currents pulling the bergs out to sea after a series of large sea level swings broke it up, not due to warming.
The glacial ice continues to move supported by the sea bed until the water gets deep enough to float it. That’s the grounding line. During expansion periods, the ice bulldozes the sea bed ahead of itself, pushing up a ridge. Then during retreats, it leaves these bulldozed ridges behind, so we can see what it’s been doing in the past.
doi: 10.1144/SP381.5
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/specpubgsl/381/1/167/F7.large.jpg
icisil,
The floating ice does have inertia. However, if it is an extension of the grounded ice, then it has the momentum imparted by the moving ice on land. Thus. it takes a force acting on it to keep it from moving into the ocean. The whole ‘buttressing’ effect is poorly supported (please pardon the pun). I’ve often seen the claim made, but never seen any calculations offered to justify the claim.
hunter,
You said, “The resistance of the mass of the ungrounded ice shelf is substantial.” On what do you base that claim?
What about the buoyancy itself being the force? The ice sheet is moving at an angle down the slope, pushing the shelf into the water, and THEN you might also have hydrostatic pressure pushing down on the edge while the buoyancy is pushing up and holding the sheet back.
Or if you think of it as a semicircle overlapping land on the straight part, you can imagine that any one direction away from land is held by the ice at the sides.
I don’t know a thing about it, but those I my two best guesses.
Apparently there’s one area that lurches 45 cm twice a day, rather than flowing smoothly. They figure the tide is lifting it enough to counteract friction.
if a few inches of sea water periodically freezes onto the bottom of its ice, this could buffer it from thinning more rapidly. In common speak, ‘If its getting thicker, it’s not getting thinner.’
[Deleted as requested. The same comment is posted further down. – mod]
[Mod – please delete my comment above which wasn’t intended as a reply, thanks]
That line intimates it is thinning and this is just another bump in the road to disaster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/15835017 Brinicles
Nobody doing research should ever “be surprised” at the results, unless they have preconceived ideas about the outcome.
I would disagree. Based on my reading of the history of science it seems far more important discoveries have been made when the unexpected is revealed rather than what was expected or actually being looked for was found. Far more “now that’s funny” moments than “Eureka” moments have presaged great discoveries in the labs and field.
I think the “eureka” moment is when you find the answer you have been searching for. When you find something you hoped wouldn’t be there is an “oh shit” moment.
Otherwise known as discrepant events.
But notice the preconceived assumption that the water below the shelf is getting warmer and thus the puzzle of why is the shelf not getting thinner.
Ah ha! :
…..or maybe it is not constantly getting warmer?
If the salinity of the water under the ice us lowered for any reason (fresh water from land) then one can expect it to freeze to the underside of the ice. This would continue until there is a balance between the remaining water and the ice temperature, (which ice is always cooling from above).
I do not find anything surprising about the ice growing on the bottom. Sea ice always grows on the bottom unless it is an iceberg from land.
The obvious conclusion is the places where the water is getting warmer is due to geothermal causes. If it was general warming of the oceans then it should be warmer everywhere.
Pretty hard to skate on ice that is on the bottom of the lake. I am pretty sure ice always adds thickness to the underside.
quaesoveritas,
It’d be both futile and pointless to attempt to clear your mind of what Bayesians call “priors” and you call “preconceived ideas.”
But science has a so-called Principle of Surprise, which basically states:
surprise = learning
And needless to say, learning is the whole point of the exercise (in science).
I don’t think that’s right, but anybody doing research should be willing to rethink their hypothesis if they get a surprising result.
Amazing what one can find when they actually go and get a first hand look instead of relying on the claims of others or sitting looking at satellite imagery and constructing models that reflect their bias . So give them credit for actually doing some real science and apparently honestly reporting what they found!
True that.
That and they may be youngsters who have been fed bs all their lives and QED have these preconceived ideas of what “should” be. I use “youngsters” here as a relative term as in anyone under, say 70.
Fully agree: these guys are for real!
Let’s watch these guys and see what happens to their careers.
There appears to be nearly zero advancement in climate “science” due to the obsession with proving the false hypothesis of AGW. They are like blind soothsayers . So much money is being spent on idiots and liars. I keep waing for other branches of science to weigh in against this insidious political corruption.
So a small, negative amount then?
How much money will we have to throw at them before they reach zero?
ClimateNuremberg once appealed to the public for examples of all the stuff we’ve learned thanks to climate science in the last 25 years.
Before you click the link, try to predict how many answers there were.
And that sometimes means the orthodoxy will be attacked. People new to the field want to make their mark, but just conforming what is already “known” won’t do that. so in the end good old ambition and ego shifts even the most blocked science.
A Danish pollen analyst found that there had been a cooling period of 50 yrs+ in an area in North Denmark. I asked him later how his research was progressing. He answered: «I stopped this research because I was bypassed when I should have been promoted, and my grant was cancelled.»
There is no need to tell any scientist to stop publishing the truth. Just kill his career and stop the flow of money.
Which is par for the course, and not just in climate science.
If you find something that contradicts the paradigm and threatens the flow of money into your department or even the department itself, do not expect thanks. You are maybe supposed to be a scientist dedicated to improving the lot of humanity but such dedication comes a very poor second to your Head of Department’s continued employment.
Kjell
CAGW is not a victimless crime.
” CAGW is not a victimless crime.”
Well, no—in so far as, in order to be a victimless crime, you need to *exist.*
But then CAGW isn’t a victim-ful crime either.
It’s imaginary.
Perhaps you meant the belief in CAGW? That’s called CAGWism, not CAGW.
And then they shut off the cameras, or at least wanted to.
“
That’s what happens when you get off your butts and do actual investigative science rather than just sit at your desks playing with computers.
but it’s cooooold 🙁
I assume that it is impossible for the land based ice to melt before the sea based ice melts. Then the next assumption is that they have to melt at the same time. If that isnt the case then the sea based ice melts 1st. If any of the last 2 assumptions are correct then we dont have to worry about the Antarctica melting until the Ross ice shelf begins to melt. If it is freezing as the researchers have found out then we dont havetoworry about Antarctica melting. So that leaves us with either Greenland melting or all the glaciers in the world melting. If all the galciers melted the sea level would only rise 40 cm. Not much to worry about. So that leaves only Greenland to worry about. Because if Greenland melted the the worlds sea level would rise 7 metres. So that would be a disaster for some. Therefore scientists need to do the same experiment on the Greenland ice to see if it is melting at the bottom.however the ice mass loss in Greenland has been discovered to be because of a geothermal hot spot as reported on WUWT in 2016/09/26 . Even that melting is only 0.045 mm/year added to world sea levels. Snails can travel 12 million times faster than the speed of sea level rise because of business is.this melting. So plenty of time for snails to get to higher ground. What a croc of shit this global warming business is.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of Greenland’s ice is not over water, it is land based.
yes we all know that. what is your point?
Blew their minds, huh? SURPRISE! ICE IS THICKENING!
Well, it’s good to know that something can do that to them.
I was beginning to wonder if such a thing was possible, that they could be proven incorrect in their assumptions.
Thickening. Abtholutely thickening. I feel thick. I think I’m gonna be thick.
Wait: I can’t believe that they didn’t say: “This doesn’t mean that it’s actually freezing, it might have been melting for the last 100 years, we were just lucky to drill our borehole on the single day it was freezing.”
From my file of smart remarks and tag lines:
I’m just wondering how their going to re-write the data on this one. Maybe they will drill another hole and claim it’s melting over there. Indeed rereading Dave Middleton’s post it says:
This whole thing about the warm water sneaking under the ice to melt the edge of the glacier or sea ice is is just plain BS. Who believes this stuff? Well obviously Christina Hulbe, a New Zealand “glaciologist” does. However, most people understand how sea ice and lake ice for that matter forms.
Well anyway I’m sure they’re busy drilling news holes looking for one that fits the narrative.
Give them credit for publishing the mind blowing findings that were not as expected. And leaving the sensors in place.
There is a colony of seals trapped at the head of the Ross Shelf–near land, and 60 miles from open water–that have been maintaining their breathing holes for time unknown. The ice shelf grew around them, and they must maintain their holes or die–they can’t swim from their predicament, because they can’t swim that far without breathing. It appears the shelf has been growing for many thousands of years, leaving them stranded till the Ice shrinks.
It is cruel, but this is nature, just like the 200.000 penguins trapped in the same region last year. I simply trust nature will fix it, although it will take some time.
They survive there and don’t know any different–what it proves is that the Ice Shelf has grown over the last 5000 years–even during “global warming”
What do they eat?
If you have enough chimpanzees with keyboards, there will eventually be a computer model that will make this problem melt away.
Be careful now! Someone will submit a grant application to fund the chimps for a study of the Mannix / Marcos seal / penguin colonies vis-a-vis CAGW. 😉
If this keeps up, we may soon know about 10% of the Earth’s climate, and how it works, give or take 9%. Thanks to the Precautionary Principle, we don’t have to deal with the rest that we don’t know in order to inflict our will on the rest of humanity. (sarc)
This alternative type of logic is what has to be challenged every time. They notice new ice freezing on to the bottom of of the ice shelf, but cling to the bias. The data says the ice shelf is thickening from the bottom. They conclude this phenomenon will slow down the thinning! They do this with every confounding factor discovered – they don’t let go of their computer model world. All of the science is to track down evidence of our sins, not to inquire into causes – they have this already solved.
Here is a New Jersey high school class that knows about supercooled water and are therefore stand above the the knowledge set possessed by PhD linear thinking radiologists.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fot3m7kyLn4
Mods something screwed up my name – please correct it.
(Fixed) MOD
glaciologists – illiterate Samsung Grrr I’m always having to reinstate perfectly good words!
If I had $1 for every time I had to correct my Smartphone’s spelling auto-correct… 💰💰💰💸💵💵💵💰💰💰😎
Once learned wrong, learned wrong forever , impossible to delete, and first in line to foul you up for the umpteenth time
I’m waiting on the day they push the hypothesis that CO2 is changing the melting point of H2O.
Just a matter of time now.
“I’m waiting on the day they push the hypothesis that CO2 is changing the melting point of H2O.” Yes it does. Just like salt, CO2 does affect the melting and freezing point of water. Anything that dissolves in water affects its melting, freezing or boiling point.
At the height of this Antarctic summer, I spent some time checking temperatures at Antarctic stations. It was nearly impossible to find any above freezing. If it actually ever got warm enough to affect some melting, then the meltwater would have to stay unfrozen long enough to reach the ocean. A near impossible situation. It is a good thing that precipitation is low over the continent or ice would accumulate so fast as to unbalance the earth and our seas would disappear.
Summer melting is fairly widespread on the Antarctic Peninsula. And there is some local melting even in areas where the air temperature rarely or never goes above freezing, google e. g. “Onyx river” or “Lake Vanda” for details.
In inland Antarctica sublimation is essentially the only “melting” going on. I e snow changes directly to water vapour without ever becoming liquid. This is a very slow process though.
Yes, the peninsula was the only area where above freezing temperatures can be found. I suspect it may also be the area of highest precipitation in the winter. I can’t see it having any significant sea level effect. I see a lot of concern with the greater increase in warmth in these areas or is it mostly a decrease in winter cold that does not melt ice. That appears to be the arctic situation where winters are warmer but summers may be cooler. Funny how temperatures have to be a few degrees above freezing for significant melting unless you apply dark matter or the tracks of scientists and tourists.
Or ice breakers busting up the ice in a lot of the north that is melting the fastest. Once the ice is broken up, it melts a lot quicker because there is more surface area of ice is able to make contact with water which may be above freezing, especially in the daylight seasons. They don’t call spring in the north break-up for nothing.
Onyx River is situated right over a tight cluster of volcanoes and a high geothermal heat flux. I suspect that has something to do with it.
Vanda lake is not fresh, it is essentially brine with a subsequent lower freeze point.
The science was settled within a limited frame of reference, then Nature evolved leaving the consensus behind.