Greenland's Ice Sheet is Growing

Read the article. The title is misleading. The study only indicates that the thickness is increasing at altitudes above 1500 meters, and decreasing at lower altitudes.

See also: GRACE satellite survey here and here.

4-14-2007 4:12 PM

Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate is minus 2.0 cm per year

4-14-2007 4:14 PM

So, buches, everything is still in consensus?

4-14-2007 4:30 PM

I'm no expert, but I searched EBSCO scientific databases of peer-reviewed articles containing the term (Greenland and "ice mass") since 2004, and nothing says anything contrary to the data from the GRACE satellite survey.

Despite your quote, the title is misleading.

4-14-2007 5:17 PM

This article I also clipped explains how local changes in ice sheet thickness are not as important as ice sheet flow, which has rapidly accelerated in recent years.

4-14-2007 5:42 PM

I am confused how amgumen's quotation from the source challenges the point buches made. Is he saying that losing 2 cm a year is nothing to worry about?

4-14-2007 7:04 PM

losing 2 cm a year is nothing to worry about?

An increase of 6.4 cm above 1500 and 2 cm below. Net is 4.4 cm.

Jklugman, what result would you prefer to sleep with peace in your mind? Negative or positive? To me, frankly, it does not matter, because ice sheets grow and lose, grow and lose again over the time its natural way, and nobody knows why. And if you suppose that loss below 1500 m is due only to warmig, you are not quite right, because growing masses above pushes ice off the coastal line as a result of increased stress.

4-14-2007 7:17 PM

And if you suppose that loss below 1500 m is due only to warming, you are not quite right, because growing masses above pushes ice off the coastal line as a result of increased stress.

So, not does global warming contribute to melting ice off the coastal line, but so does the increased mass of ice in the interior? That doesn't make me sleep peacefully.

4-14-2007 7:21 PM

Buches,

In a couple of years, we will clip new articles about how previous gravimetric methodology was incorrect regarding ice dynamics. We will also find reliable data how numerous undersea volcanoes around Antarctica would warm sea water along its coastline - naturally. And again, there never will be consensus.

4-14-2007 7:27 PM

That doesn't make me sleep peacefully.

I feel to you.

Then, can you define what tendency of ice dynamics would get you relaxed?

4-14-2007 7:41 PM

No melting ice off coastlines would be nice.

Oh, and there was a missing "only" in my previous comment. "So not ONLY does global warming contribute..."

4-14-2007 7:48 PM

It seems to me the alarmism is more dangerous for people than global warming.

For the last 10,000 years Scandinavia have been on the rise because so-called glacio-isostatic upwelling at the rate of 2-5 mm/year. For many people, should they get to know about, it would be a serious cause for insomnia.

4-14-2007 7:52 PM

No melting ice off coastlines would be nice.

So, constant ice growth up to a new ice age would be better to sleep?

4-14-2007 8:21 PM

Do I smell an excluded middle, amgumen? Or is it true that we must choose between a new ice age, and a catastrophic sea level rise?

4-14-2007 8:28 PM

amgumen, in this single thread, you posted a clip with a misleading title, made two irrelevant comments, made a mathematical error, disregarded reliable data that disputes your preconceived notion, foretold of future data that will be reliable because it will support your preconceived notion, made another irrelevant observation, and gave jklugman a false choice.

Not bad at all.

4-14-2007 8:36 PM

So, constant ice growth up to a new ice age would be better to sleep?

Hey, I'm no expert, but "No melting ice off coastlines" would seem to me to include a scenario of constant ice levels as well.

4-14-2007 8:59 PM

a scenario of constant ice levels as well.

Such a scenario is only in your dreams.

4-15-2007 12:08 AM

Do I smell an excluded middle, amgumen? Or is it true that we must
choose between a new ice age, and a catastrophic sea level rise?

We can't, Buches, choose, no matter what we would like. Unlike you I don't think we will be able to govern the climate system signing protocols that were prepared on the basis of peer-reviwed literature. All we can is to design some imperfect methodologies to observe processes and guess on possible causes. I also don't know what is the middle. If you look at the graph, the middle is a transient stage. Also, as one can see, a new ice age is more probale.

4-15-2007 12:36 AM

you posted a clip with a misleading title, made two irrelevant
comments, made a mathematical error, disregarded reliable data that
disputes your preconceived notion, foretold of future data that will be
reliable because it will support your preconceived notion

If I nade mistakes (why not) please correct it.

No, I did not foretell future data. Let me enlighten you, Buches, that Antarctica is one of the most tectonically active zones all over the Earth. All the chains of the world rift system join here, crossing the continent. A very active volcano Erebus works here with liquid lava lake in, and numerous other volcanoes around in the sea to melt the ice, polynias among ice she...

4-15-2007 12:40 AM

Sorry for the misprints

4-30-2007 1:24 PM

The missing paragraphs from the clip

Modelling studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming have shown that temperature increases up to about 3ºC lead to positive mass balance changes at high elevations – due to snow accumulation – and negative at low elevations – due to snow melt exceeding accumulation.

Such models agree with the new observational results. However after that threshold is reached, potentially within the next hundred years, losses from melting would exceed accumulation from increases in snowfall – then the meltdown of the Greenland Ice Sheet would be on.

4-30-2007 1:41 PM

What has been "missed" does not add any alarm to the current situation. Everything is within the natural variability.

4-30-2007 2:03 PM

What was left out explains a lot, in fact changes the entire subtext. Funny that, isn't it?

4-30-2007 3:13 PM

TheCatWhisperer

Indeed.

4-30-2007 6:53 PM

willhelm

Yes, very funny. Kmcolo claims to be a "scientist". I am having my doubts. This is the second time in a row he has picked a small line out of a clip to make the attempt to be an author of confusion rather than an author of intellectual honest and the blinded (TCW) follow in their blindness.

I think this thread can be summed up this way: Test everything and hold to that which is good. Global Warming fearmongers would rather test some things and hold to that which benefits their materialist ideology. Pitiful.

Amugen, excellent defense. Sometimes you just have to throw your hands up.

4-30-2007 7:20 PM

What specifically does it change? That in couple of age Greenland going to turn green (in the line with its name)? But it happened already in Medieval time and chance is that it will again - with no reference to human predictions and emissions.

5-1-2007 7:52 AM

amgumen, read the article again. The quote says that what is happening now is predicted by models that take human released greenhouse gases and their warming effects into account. Also, you seem to be implying that Greenland was free of ice or largely so during the "LIA", are you?

willhelm, yawn. Your nasty remarks show you have no argument.

5-1-2007 7:40 PM

willhelm

You defined my remarks as nasty? Very strange.
By the way, comments aren't always meant to be arguments. Some are observations, some are facts, some are snide remarks, some are humorous, and SOME are arguments. I'm glad you could determine which one my comment was NOT.

5-1-2007 11:48 PM

The quote says that what is happening now is predicted by models that take human released greenhouse gases and their warming effects into account.

Again, what is happening now and predicted by the models shows no alarm at all.

5-2-2007 8:54 AM

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain..."

5-2-2007 8:57 AM