As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas

[telemann.livejournal.com]

From a helicopter hovering over Greenland, the oceanographer Fiammetta Straneo took measurements to determine how fast the water is melting the nearby Helheim Glacier.

The New York Times on Sunday, had a great article about scientists studying the quickening pace of glacier melt in Greenland. According to climate experts, sea levels are expected to rise significantly due to melting glacial ice; estimates vary from three to six feet by the end of the century.

Climate scientists readily admit that the three-foot estimate could be wrong. Their understanding of the changes going on in the world’s land ice is still primitive. But, they say, it could just as easily be an underestimate as an overestimate. One of the deans of American coastal studies, Orrin H. Pilkey of Duke University, is advising coastal communities to plan for a rise of at least five feet by 2100. “I think we need immediately to begin thinking about our coastal cities — how are we going to protect them?” said John A. Church, an Australian scientist who is a leading expert on sea level. “We can’t afford to protect everything. We will have to abandon some areas.”

While snowfall for Greenland increased during the 1990s, warmer air temperatures, and warm waters penetrating glacial fjords, have accelerated glacier melt and in a significant manner. But not everyone believes global warming is responsible:

John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is often critical of mainstream climate science, said he suspected that the changes in Greenland were linked to this natural variability, and added that he doubted that the pace would accelerate as much as his colleagues feared. For high predictions of sea-level rise to be correct, “some big chunks of the Greenland ice sheet are going to have to melt, and they’re just not melting that way right now,” Dr. Christy said. Yet other scientists say that the recent changes in Greenland appear more pervasive than those of the early 20th century, and that they are occurring at the same time that air and ocean temperatures are warming, and ice melt is accelerating, throughout much of the world.

To a majority of climate scientists, the question is not whether the earth’s land ice will melt in response to the greenhouse gases those people are generating, but whether it will happen too fast for society to adjust. Recent research suggests that the volume of the ocean may have been stable for thousands of years as human civilization has developed. But it began to rise in the 19th century, around the same time that advanced countries began to burn large amounts of coal and oil.

The sea has risen about eight inches since then, on average. That sounds small, but on a gently sloping shoreline, such an increase is enough to cause substantial erosion unless people intervene. Governments have spent billions in recent decades pumping sand onto disappearing beaches and trying to stave off the loss of coastal wetlands.

Scientists have been struggling for years to figure out if a similar pace of sea-level rise is likely to continue in this century — or whether it will accelerate. In its last big report, in 2007, the United Nations group that assesses climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that sea level would rise at least seven more inches, and might rise as much as two feet, in the 21st century.

But the group warned that these estimates did not fully incorporate “ice dynamics,” the possibility that the world’s big ice sheets, as well as its thousands of smaller glaciers and ice caps, would start spitting ice into the ocean at a much faster rate than it could melt on land. Scientific understanding of this prospect was so poor, the climate panel said, that no meaningful upper limit could be put on the potential rise of sea level.

That report prompted fresh attempts by scientists to calculate the effect of ice dynamics, leading to the recent, revised projections of sea-level rise.

Climate scientists note that while the science of studying ice may be progressing slowly, the world’s emissions of heat-trapping gases are not. They worry that the way things are going, extensive melting of land ice may become inevitable before political leaders find a way to limit the gases, and before scientists even realize such a point of no return has been passed.

“The past clearly shows that sea-level rise is getting faster and faster the warmer it gets,” Dr. Rahmstorf said. “Why should that process stop? If it gets warmer, ice will melt faster.”

Recent analysis of Greenland's glacial melt.


This photo shows the “bathtub ring” above Helheim Glacier. It was created in the middle of the last decade when the glacier sped up and thinned, exposing rock that had once been covered by ice. The light-colored band of rock is about 300 feet thick. The Greenland ice sheet can be seen in the background at the top of the picture.


Summer ponds of melted water on the surface of Helheim Glacier. This kind of melting has accelerated because air temperatures in Greenland are warming.

And before of the denialists come out swinging that ice has been increasing in the Artic or Greenland, please watch this first:

The graph above shows daily Arctic sea ice extent as of November 1, 2010, along with daily ice extents for years with the previous four lowest minimum extents. Light blue indicates 2010, dark blue shows 2009, purple shows 2008, dotted green indicates 2007, and dark gray shows the 1979 to 2000 average. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.


Monthly October ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 6.2% per decade.



It's a fascinating read, extremely well written. I thought I'd pass it along to the community. One worrisome feature is that apparently due to budget constraints, several satellites used by NASA and NOAA for studying glacial ice melt, and water temperatures, etc are being retired with no immediate replacements, due to budget constraints. NASA is using airplane overflies to garner what information it can, but losing satellites at this critical juncture is not good.

I thought this article by Fiammetta Straneo is fascinating as well. It's a study of sea levels during the Roman period and the implications of rising sea levels on modern society. Another resource to check is the The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Comments

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Basically this is just a bunch of blah about you trusting corporations and absolutely not any government funded scientists of the world (since a lot of research is international), and claiming that all research proving that modern climate change is man enhanced is a big scam and cover up for scientists wanting to keep their jobs.

And corporations, such as oil, coal and motor vehicles are...honest in their claims that man enhanced climate change is a bunch of "hysterics".

yeah okay. It's laughable that you think the market would be "free" should government fold and completely stay out of it.

Someone could probably lead you into a research facility, show you the latest instruments measuring atmospheric particles and how they have changed over the recent decades, explain every detail to you, show you how they've looked historically, have you look for yourself on the results, and you still would not believe, because it's a "guvurnment coverup".

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Well said.

As a person, I tend to like ofbg -- but in this instance, his
argument basically boils down to "I dont trust them....because I dont"
and then he turns around and trusts special interest groups instead.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

"I dont trust them....because I dont"

It's because they proved they're untrustworthy with fraudulent science. If there is real science behind any of it, the burden of proof is now in their lap. Sux to be them and us, if there's any legitimacy to it at all.

It's also clear that the governments, from the UN to the nationals, have a political agenda. POWER.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

There are actually numerous pieces of research on this very matter that is open to the public. I visited the climate research center in Boulder and have read some studies and measurements. Not a big deal, but hey, I guess you think they are all "tampered with".

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

It's because they proved they're untrustworthy with fraudulent science.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's tin foil hat shit. If you look at a 9/11 truther and anti global warming types, it's the same mentality. GOVT cover-up and involvement in some vast conspiracy. .

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

"because it's a "guvurnment coverup"."

No because the global warming advocates have lost all creditability due to the aforementioned fraud, dishonesty and deceit.

They cut their own throats and maybe ours too!(if there was any truth to their theory)

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

You'll have to do better than this, instead of sputtering hyperbolic words why don't you back up what you are implying.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11mMsNfUd

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ

And now there's attempted secrecy.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/climate-panel-struggles-with-media-plan/?emc=eta1

There has never been a consensus. Even that allegation is a fraud.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

If you want more, I've got lots.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

These may help:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/181237/51

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/23211/495

And here's the whole list, go wild:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Thanks, a lot of reading to do.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That's such a great resource.

Thanks for posting it!

;)

And speaking of fossil fueled based anti-global warming links....

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Your first link about Harold Lewis:

(1.) He hasn't published a single paper on the subject.
(2.) Even the author of the blog and others who read his statement (in the link you provided) note that the tone of his resignation letter betrays a lack of scientific level-headedness.
(3.) He's a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a fossil fuels backed anti-global warming PAC group.

The 3rd link, the article was written by Matt Patterson, who is an editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center, which is has a lot of funding *DRUMROLL* from pro-fossil fuel groups like Exxon and the Koch Family Foundations through its Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.

The Petition Project?
The Oregon Petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It's so bad, that even the "Skeptics Society" (oh the irony) even debunked the list used by the petition. (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/)

Re: And speaking of fossil fueled based anti-global warming links....

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

"(1.) He hasn't published a single paper on the subject."

Why would a Physicist publish about climatology?

"even the "Skeptics Society"-- debunked the list.

I read the article, you should have done so too, at least through the first comment. One of the skeptics complaint was, "Robinson fails to report the cross-tabulations of fields of expertise and levels of education". Well the first commenter did that, why didn't the skeptics?

From the first comment:

"It seems Gary you have a lot to learn about the Global Warming debate. Let me give you some qualifications of media defined or self proclaimed “experts”.

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
John P. Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman)
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Tom J. Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

You are apparently clueless since you think the alarmist position is from scientists with Climatology degrees!"

Not too many climatologists there.

But from the petition signers the commenter apparently did what the skeptics should have:

"Here are the qualifications of some skeptics…

David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Sweden
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology
Richard A. Keen, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Colorado
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Virginia
Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology

Amazing that you use arguments based on your subjective appeals to authority and can call yourself a skeptic?"

We can trade links all day but you should at least read yours.

Re: And speaking of fossil fueled based anti-global warming links....

[telemann.livejournal.com]

We can trade links all day but you should at least read yours

I do, hon. I do.

Why would a Physicist publish about climatology?

Exactly. He's not an expert in the field he's whining about.

It seems Gary you have a lot to learn about the Global Warming debate. Let me give you some qualifications of media defined or self proclaimed “experts”

But then they're not the ones writing the papers about global warming in scientific literature. So what's his point?

Oh and your list of "experts"?

David Legates: Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute, a research fellow with the Independent Institute[, and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute], all of which have received funding from Exxon-Mobil.

John Christy: John R. Christy was a co-drafter of the American Geophysical Union's December 2003 position statement on climate change, which concludes that:

"Human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and that natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

Patrick Michaels: Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels. Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), which burns coal to help confuse the issue of global warming.

Robert Balling: Balling was mentioned as a fossil fuel industry - funded scientist in Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book The Heat is On. Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead)."

Amazing that you use arguments based on your subjective appeals to authority and can call yourself a skeptic?"

You really should learn the real meaning of logical fallacies based on appeals to authority.

No one has ever said "You know there isn't one scientist out there that disagrees with AGW." An that also doesn't mean, you can't find a single expert that disagrees with the concept of AGW. When big tobacco was fighting against the research establishing the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking and the use of tobacco products, they were able to fund doctors and scientists to challenge the research. Tobacco industry internal documents that have come to light show precisely the tactic to be used: create doubt and get experts to challenge the research. Quite a few of the lobbyists used by big tobacco eventually became part of the fossil fuel industry's attempts to deny human based global warming in the 1990s.

In peer reviewed literature, the overall gist is that global warming is caused by increased co2 levels due to the use of fossil fuels. There isn't a single scientific body anywhere in the world that disagrees with that.

Re: And speaking of fossil fueled based anti-global warming links....

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

"He's not an expert in the field he's whining about."

Did you notice that Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering (IPCC Chairman), is not exactly in the field too but he's the IPCC chairman?

"Oh and your list of "experts"?"

Of course energy companies, when attacked and demonized by the government funded scientists, have to fight back. Do you really think they would employ scientists that would oppose them?

And the one that apparently changed sides to sign the petition, John Christy may have begun to realize that the fight against AGW is no longer science but politics.

"You really should learn the real meaning of logical fallacies"

You're commenting on a statement made by the first commenter to the article, not my words.

"There isn't a single scientific body anywhere in the world that disagrees with that."

I don't know. I try not to use absolute words or statements like that but sometimes I fail. That aside, don't you think that 31000+ scientists comprise a sizable body? At least in the context of the Webster definition, (5: a group of persons or things:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/body

"In peer reviewed literature"

True but the peers declined to review such pieces (maybe for deny-ability?) as:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

which makes the statement, "Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."

The 5.5% figure is what most computer models conclude and the 'peer reviews' accept. The link explains in detail how that is wrong.

It is one of the main reasons many of us 'evil deniers' don't trust the government sponsored 'consensus'.

I too believed AGW blindly until I saw this article. That sent me on the path of rooting out other articles which helped steer my beliefs until the 'climategate' fraud at Manchester was revealed. Now I know it is a simple, yet complex fraud,(what kind of fallacy is that?) probably government sponsored.

Re: And speaking of fossil fueled based anti-global warming links....

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Let me just add that Hans Jelbring, the Swedish professor is owned (and works for) one of Sweden's biggest energy companies and frequently writes in their paper. As a Swede, I'm quite familiar with his antics, he has for instance once written in an article that "if a new ice age is plague and global warming is cholera, then cholera is to be preferred, because a few more degrees is far better than the chill and cold a new ice age would bring, think of all the refugees we would get!" (referring to Sweden and showing once more that he is conservative anti immigration partisan)

Re: And speaking of fossil fueled based anti-global warming links....

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, he's well known for that stuff.

sigh

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

You have got to be kidding me. I gave you specifically the link above naming various organizations (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html) that are funded by oil and automotive and opposing global warming research, and *every* one of your links nails such a one.
And you do know that the "Torygraph" is partially funded by the Barclay brothers' investments in The Automotive Financial Group, right? no really, just look it up!

You should read each and every link on this (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/) page, but I'm kinda doubting you will. It really undermines every aspect of your little link bombing up there, otherwise I guess lafinjack and telemann are addressing some of the problems with your whole answer.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The other thing is, that physicist he linked to, resigning in a big huff over the global warming hoax? Nearly none of the participants in that body of scientists receive a dime of gov't money for their work. And that's easily verified by looking up grants etc, since it's all public.

The other link about a lack of scientific agreement, was written by a gentleman who works for a right wing think tank mostly funded by fossil fuel industries. Never mind the game being played, the argument moved from any scientific papers arguing over agreement as a whole about global warming, to just random polls. So you're seeing terms being mixed up and really confusing the situation in the public mind.

You know, I can bet you this week's paycheck, I can find a doctor that will tell you cancer isn't caused by smoking cigarettes. Oh wait, the tobbaco lobby tried that route in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s and 1990s.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

True story: I had a geologist friend who died a few years back. He was a skeptic and also a huge smoker. He developed cancer and died in 2007 (he didn't even hit 50). One of my last memories of him was while he was under treatment and having lunch with me, and with huge breathing problems, while holding a lit cig, he firmly told me that his condition wasn't smoking related. he died a few months later from suffocation during the night.

Re: sigh

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

That actually is a good link.

They list their financial info and they don't seem to taking government money. Thanks.

A lot of reading but I will do it.

Re: sigh

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Well, that's a good attitude, which puts you above many I've talked with on these matters!

Re: sigh

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

That's if I don't die first.

"geologist friend who died--He developed cancer and died in 2007--"

I'm 68, been smoking 54 years, longer than he lived. Sad for him and his.

Re: sigh

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Some genetics come into the equation of course. My grandma died at 69, from lung cancer.