Glaciers melting faster than expected.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I take it that under your thinking that anyone who is a denier does so to justify putting out as much CO2 as he/she can.

No, but many do.

Quote

Has it occurred to you that there may be some "deniers" out there who could put out a lot more CO2 than they do?

Yes, everyone cold put out more, for most it is a matter of economics not morality.

Quote

Or that there are plenty of alarmists out there who drive SUVs and fly private jets and otherwise actually put out a lot of pullution?

There is one thing understanding a problem and doing nothing about it, and there is another thing simply denying that there is a probelm at all.

I don't know which is worse and i don't expect everyone to reduce thier livlihoods to a hippy commune, a little understanding and respect however goes a long way.

Quote

Look - I see predictions being off. I see predictions that a glacier that has lost half of its mass in 40 years will lose half of its remaining mass in the next 100 years thanks to warming. A scientist "feels" that warming is a suspect.

Huh?

The glaciers don't have to dissapear completely for it to be a problem.

I find it hard to understand that anyone can think the airborne pollution that we as the human race have produced is not a problem with dire repercussions and consequence. To argue otherwise seems silly.

But that is just me I suppose. Evidence is not always taken heed of and the easy solution is most often favored over the truth.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

as far as I am aware all 1200+ glaciers in New Zealand are losing mass, A glacier can start progressing in warmer conditions if the Neve become more liquid the ice is pushed down the valley faster.

I'm not even try to refute what you said (how reputable are the sources you're using, and are you sure they aren't politically biased?) because at the end what you're saying means "New Zealand warming", and this is quite different from "Global warming".

Quote

It seem more than a couple of glaciers are losing mass;

I believe it's quite easy to find a few hundred glaciers which do lose mass. Therefore I'd like to see the percentage numbers. Are 90% of glaciers losing their mass, or 1%? I bet you would also agree this is significant.

Quote

Another prediction is; The melting of one of the world's largest ice sheets would alter the Earth's field of gravity and even its rotation in space so much that it would cause sea levels along some coasts to rise faster than the global average.

I follow those theories which are based on facts, and try to ignore those which do not. A bunch of Christians have been already predicted this world will end in a matter of years, which makes global warming quite irrelevant - who cares about glaciers when the God is going to build a perfect world for those who are saved anyway?

Quote

This would affect north america more than the rest of the world as explained in this publication

You do understand that all the quotes you have so far are coming from a single source, which doesn't really look unbiased; don't you?

Quote

there are plenty of theories, most of which conclude a negative impact the earth as we know it.

Yes there are. For example, one of those theories says that men who have sex with other men, or people who engage in premarital sexual acts, indeed have negative impact over our survival as well. Being a reasonable person I cannot accept any of those.

Quote

It seems quite selfish to me that the deniers use thier belief as an excuse to keep belching out as much Co2 as they can, while making the efforts of those that care almost pointless.

The problem I see here is that if you ask me just to accept your beliefs combined with a few established facts, you're no different than Christians who want to ban abortion because it would "make the world better". Of course, if you ONLY consider the "killing unborn babies" scenario, it will indeed make the world better. However if you look just a little further, like what gonna happen to those unwanted babies once they're born - it's quite obvious that the problem is not that simple, and cannot be solved by simply banning abortion, no matter how Jesus crowd wants you to.

Quote

So you're trying to say that more densly populated areas are worse for the envirionment than everyone living on a 1/4 acre section?

This is true. The problem here is that you cannot stop large cities growing further. They make themselves a magnet for high-paid jobs, so at the end you have a lot of people commuting there at the morning, and commuting out at the evening. This means the requirements for the resources are much higher in those areas, and creates imbalance in any public transportation system. As an example, do you know total density population of China? Now compare it to the Southern part of China , and you'll see where the problem is.

Quote

How so? there may be an increase in pollution per metre in a densly populated area but compare that to the pollution created but the same amount of people spread out over the area it would take to house them in a suburban environmnt.

This is an interesting phenomenon. In short, it is based on a simple thing - if you're the one taking a leak in your backyard bush, it might be ok for your local environment. If there are 20 people doing so - probably not. The problem is that population does not spread evenly, because of some reasons.

Quote

Are you including the rate of population increase. look at the population today as opposed to 100 years ago.

I assume you're talking about raw numbers, as using multipliers makes no sense (like 2x growth in Luxembourg population to ~500K in 2009). Then a ~200M population growth in U.S. between 1909-2009 is not that significant comparing to China population growth of 670M since just 1949. So if you're looking to lower the environment impact, you really might be looking in a wrong direction.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

There is one thing understanding a problem and doing nothing about it, and there is another thing simply denying that there is a probelm at all.

I wonder whether you consider the first thing worse than the second one; do you?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[JackC 0]

Quote

Look - I see predictions being off. I see predictions that a glacier that has lost half of its mass in 40 years will lose half of its remaining mass in the next 100 years thanks to warming. A scientist "feels" that warming is a suspect.

What other possible mechanisms could be responsible for ice melting? Ice melts when the temperature goes up. It's basic thermodynamics.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Keep reading into things and attributing your thoughts to others.
I was just sticking up for someone I happen to like as a friend.

He didn't need sticking up for; he was being joked with; and I assure you he and everybody else knew it.
So you either had a dull lack of recognition of that (a distinct possibility) or you were backhandedly taking yet another cheap, childish swipe at the other guy because you had the chance. Or both, I suppose.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

It seems quite selfish to me that the deniers use thier belief as an excuse to keep belching out as much Co2 as they can, while making the efforts of those that care almost pointless.
.

I take it that under your thinking that anyone who is a denier does so to justify putting out as much CO2 as he/she can.

Has it occurred to you that there may be some "deniers" out there who could put out a lot more CO2 than they do? Or that there are plenty of alarmists out there who drive SUVs and fly private jets and otherwise actually put out a lot of pullution?

Look - I see predictions being off. I see predictions that a glacier that has lost half of its mass in 40 years will lose half of its remaining mass in the next 100 years thanks to warming. A scientist "feels" that warming is a suspect.

Huh?

I take it you have never heard of the logarithm or hyperbolic tangent functions. These often crop up as solutions to differential equations. An accelerating increasing trend in a stimulus variable is quite capable of producing an increasing but decelerating trend in its response. The Avrami mechanism for phase changes (which can include melting) is exactly one such situation. Not all functional relationships are linear. (I gave you the hint previously but your lawyer's instincts prevented you from seeing it).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

The attached image that you included -

it appears to me that the slope of the line has remained relatively constant over the past 100 years (yes... I see the up´s and down´s but the overall slope)

One would think that if it were due to the American culture change with what some on this site would call our *cough* frivolous lifestyle and cavilier use of autos, then the slope would have sharply risen starting in ... lets say 1980´s? or maybe even 1960´s?

On what scientific basis would you think that? Seems like an assumption unwarranted by the physics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What other possible mechanisms could be responsible for ice melting? Ice melts when the temperature goes up. It's basic thermodynamics.

So, then, you are in agreement. When the temperature increases melting accellerates. The hotter it is the more melt you'd expect.

Thus, if you see a glacier losing half of its volume in 40 years, you'd expect it to melt even more quickly (all things being the same it'd lose a much greater percentage in the next 40 years). Instead, it is predicted to take a century to lose another 50 percent.

Picture having a 10 pound block of ice. Let's say it loses 5 pounds of its mass in 2 hours. You then say, "it lost 50% (5 pounds) of its volume in 2 hours. We predict it will lose another 50% (2.5 pound) in the next 5 hours."

Wouldn't simple thermodynamics suggest that you certainly do not expect it to get any warmer? There was enough heat to melt 5 pounds in 2 hours. Now you expect enough heat to melt 2.5 pounds in 5 hours.

Inference?

See what I'm saying? It's another way of saying that we expect that there is has been warming but we also expect further warming to be nominal at best over the next century - not even enough to finish off these glaciers that have been melting at an alarming rate.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JackC 0]

Quote

See what I'm saying?

I see what you're missing.

Your block of ice example is correct for what it is but it's not applicable in this case. If you had half of your block of ice at sea level and half at the top of a mountain, you'd be closer to reality.

Glaciers aren't all at the same temperature because they are formed on mountains and temperature depends on altitude. Just because one end of the glacier is melting, doesn't mean the rest of it is. The altitude at which the temperature drops below freezing (the snow line) will creep upwards as the temperature at sea level increases but the lapse rate may not be linear, or it may even reverse and it will definitely change with climate conditions.

You know, if you are going to try and debunk the science, you should at least try and understand it first.

[Andy9o8 2]

My aren't we all snarky in here. Well, except me.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Picture having a 10 pound block of ice. Let's say it loses 5 pounds of its mass in 2 hours. You then say, "it lost 50% (5 pounds) of its volume in 2 hours. We predict it will lose another 50% (2.5 pound) in the next 5 hours."

You are way oversimplifying the science of phase transformations and heat and mass transfer. Just solving the heat conduction equation for a complex shape like a glacier with different boundary conditions on different surfaces is a non-trivial matter. Throw in a phase change it it gets really complicated; problems like this are only amenable to numerical solution, not hand waving (unless you're Richard Feynman).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I take it you have never heard of the logarithm or hyperbolic tangent functions.

I heard of them. I even tried to attend their functions, but I was left off the guest lists. They would only let me in with a cosin-er.

[Reply] An accelerating increasing trend in a stimulus variable is quite capable of producing an increasing but decelerating trend in its response. The Avrami mechanism for phase changes (which can include melting) is exactly one such situation.

[Ion01 2]

What!! You mean things don't stay the same for ever? You mean to tell me that things change! That climate isn't constant? What will we ever do?!
You mean to tell me that things are currently changing like they always have though out history? Holy *%#! Just like Herculaneum was a port town but is now far from the shore like so many other cities, or how numerous different deserts around the world weren't always deserts such as the Sahara? *%#! We are all going to die from heat despite the fact that man flourished the most during the roman and midieval warming periods (when there wasn't a huge carbon industry) and versus the little ice age and such! We will all starve despite the fact that global warming means more farm land! The end is near! This is your final warning! Don't listen to facts like the fact that atmospheric temps have dropped since 1999 and have undone the heating of the past 30 years! To deny global warming is like denying the holocaust! Polar bears are about to disappear despit the fact they have doubled since the 1950's! We can't allow evolution to take its course and elimate the unfit through a changing enviroment. We must take action and do our part to reduce the total amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere by less that 1%. We can't wait! We must reduce carbon emissions even though NASA is trying to find where 30% of the carbon has disappeared to!
We must take drastic action! 1% reduction is not enough. The total moose population alone results in 4,063,500,00 kilos of carbon dioxide per year! We must hunt them all down! Cows too! All animals infact! The all breath and fart! Plants only absorb CO2 in sunlight so at night they at to the carbon levels! Particularly the crops that we eat! We need to burn all the forest and plants! Then we must kill ourselves! Even then our planet is doomed because we can't stop volcanoes and other emissions from our planet! Act Now! We can't wait! The only way to stop the end from coming is to end it all now!

[warpedskydiver 0]

What you fail to realize is how glaciers are formed.

Snow, freeze, thaw, freeze, repeat and rinse.

[billvon 3,120]

>I believe it's quite easy to find a few hundred glaciers which do lose mass.
>Therefore I'd like to see the percentage numbers. Are 90% of glaciers losing
>their mass, or 1%? I bet you would also agree this is significant.

In Switzerland and Italy, 100% of the glaciers were retreating in 2005. In Alaska in 2008, 99% were retreating. In Antarctica in 2005, 87% of the glaciers were retreating.

In 2005, 67% of Himalayan glaciers were retreating. Tajikistan - 100%. Cascades - 100%. Iceland - 100%. Greenland - all three primary glaciers are retreating.

=====================
Fri, Jan 30, 2009
Mongabay

Glaciers decline in ice mass for 18th straight year

Glaciers worldwide lost ice mass for the 18th consecutive year due to warming temperatures and reduce snowfall, reports the University of Zurich’s World Glacier Monitoring Service. Alpine glaciers lost on average 1.3 meters of thickness in 2006 and 0.7 meters in 2007, extending an 11.3-meter (36-foot) retreat since 1980. The pace melting has more than doubled since the 1990s
=====================
Fri, Mar 21, 2008
The Guardian

Glaciers melting at fastest rate in past 5,000 years

Experts have been monitoring 30 glaciers around the world for nearly three decades and the most recent figures, for 2006, show the biggest ever 'net loss' of ice. Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), told The Observer that melting glaciers were now the 'loudest and clearest' warning signal of global warming.
====================
NASA Media Alerts Stories Archive
April 21, 2005

GLACIERS FROM ANTARCTIC PENINSULA IN WIDESPREAD RETREAT, SCIENCE STUDY SAYS

The first comprehensive study of glaciers on Antarctic Peninsula has uncovered
widespread glacier retreat and suggests that recent climate change on the peninsula is
responsible.
Eighty-seven percent of the 244 marine glaciers have retreated over the last 50 years, a
new study says.
======================

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

However, land ice melting will increase sea level, since that's water that used to be on land and is now returning to the ocean.

Somewhat moderated by warmer air holding more water vapor.

[billvon 3,120]

>Somewhat moderated by warmer air holding more water vapor.

But also exacerbated by warmer water expanding.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

However, land ice melting will increase sea level, since that's water that used to be on land and is now returning to the ocean.

Somewhat moderated by warmer air holding more water vapor.

Easy question: If ALL the water vapor in the atmosphere were to precipitate out and end up in the oceans, how much would sea level rise?

Slightly harder question: If just the ADDITIONAL water vapor in the atmosphere due to atmospheric warming were to precipitate out and end up in the oceans, how much would sea level rise?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Barely noticeable, or not measurable.

The area of oceans and seas is so large that there would barely be a difference.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I hope this helps you astound your students.

Anytime I can help let me know.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Another prediction is; The melting of one of the world's largest ice sheets would alter the Earth's field of gravity and even its rotation in space so much that it would cause sea levels along some coasts to rise faster than the global average .

This would affect north america more than the rest of the world as explained in this publication

there are plenty of theories, most of which conclude a negative impact the earth as we know it.

The article says nothing about changed gravitation fields or rotation. Frankly, this sounds like the same science you cite for 9/11 theories. The earth has a radius of 4000miles, and you're talking about the ice mass on the top 5 or 6 miles shifting down to sea level. It's not a huge amount, and this is a world that has had those sort of shifts take place before.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

I hope this helps you astound your students.

Anytime I can help let me know.

My students can do it all by themselves, and calculate the correct numbers too.

But thanks for pointing out that atmospheric water vapor is not going to help ameliorate a rise in sea level.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Just because one end of the glacier is melting, doesn't mean the rest of it is.

Excellent point. A point for which the article specifically spoke. From the article in the original post:

Quote

Since 1959, the U.S. Geological Survey, which published the study on its Web site, has been tracking the movements of the South Cascade glacier in Washington and the Wolverine and Gulkana glaciers in Alaska. The three glaciers are considered "benchmarks" for the conditions of thousands of other glaciers because they're in different climate zones and at various elevations.

"These changes are taking place in Washington State and Alaska in three different climate regimes," said Edward Josberger, the lead researcher on the study with the USGS Washington Water Science Center in Tacoma, Washington.

So, while what you say makes an incredible amount of sense to me, apparently there is something else going on for which altitude is limited in its importance.

This leaves us with a couple of choices: (1) your thought has been disproven; (2) the lead researcher, who found it happening at different altitudes, cannot be trusted; or (3) the data is wrong.

I mean, he made sure that he specifically cited that this is occurring a different altitudes and in different climate regimes. Surprised me, too. So I'm looking here at what the article has to say.

I think your point has a great deal of validity, though. It makes sense to me. According to the article, "The melting has far exceeded the amount of snow that falls on them in the winter, so they're retreating far up valley." His aversion to the "glacially fed lakes" outside of Anchorage also seem to indicate that there won't be nearly as much water filling them because of the lack of glacier melt (these lakes must be recent - the glaciers weren't melting before (yes, I'm being a wise ass).)

Thus, as I stated in an earlier post, with continued melting and retreat, without snowfall to replenish the melt, the glacier would be, effectively, yearly snowpack within prior to the next 100 years (remember - glaciers don't just sit there. They move downhill).

Yes, Jack, I thought of it. And I am in agreement with what you are saying. On the other hand, this is apparently good science that runs somewhat counter to what you and I understand.

But - probably the best studied glacier in the world is the Soutch Cascade glacier. This glacier has an elevation range of 1630^2130 m and an area of 2 km with a length of 3 km. It gets about 5 meters of snowfall annually. One could expect there to be about 1 degree C difference in temperature between the base and the peak. Recall that these glaciers are typically warmed and melted by surrounding air in the summertime. The melting is attributed to tropospehric warming (up to, what, 10 miles?) But, theory is also that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere re-radiate, so we could expect the top of the glacier to melt, as well.

See why certain things don't make as much sense to me? Yeah, it's colder 1,500 feet up. I get that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

>Somewhat moderated by warmer air holding more water vapor.

But also exacerbated by warmer water expanding.

Ice floats....think about that for a minute

[billvon 3,120]

>Ice floats....think about that for a minute.

OK. I am beginning to think about it. I see a cool way to propel icebergs in warmer water, an experiment to demonstrate the displacement thing, and an odd thought about why ice in beer would be a bad idea.

OK, minute's up.