Ice sheet overview

Thingsbreak has a great overview of recent research on ice loss in the Antarctic (east and west) and Greenland.

For anyone who has had enough of the freedom vs responsibility of the press discussion (mandas?), perhaps there are some interesting bits in Thingsbreak’s post to mull over.

I have posted on sea ice dynamics before (here), the two topics are not unrelated as stable ice shelves act as resistors to out flowing glaciers. Lost sea ice leads to faster glacial outflow which leads to thining ice sheets.

[Update: I have just observed out my window that it is snowing, I imagine this can only mean a reversal of the trends discussed by thingsbreak! Good news!]

224 thoughts on “Ice sheet overview

  1. What’s up Dick? Don’t like it when someone casts aspersions on your profession? Bit of a hypocrite aren’t you?

    You love saying that you don’t trust scientists and that we are all involved in a conspiracy or that we are only doing it for the grant money. But as soon as someone does it to you, you get all upset.

    You are showing your true colours aren’t you? I knew I would get a reaction – which is exactly why I did it. If you don’t like people criticising your profession, stop doing it to others.

    And will you email my comments before or after you email Judith Curry? How is that going by the way?

    Like

  2. Oh, and Dick.

    I already know you can’t be bothered commenting on anything I post. I have posted long detailed analyses of a number of the references you provided, and not once did you have the integrity to even acknowledge that you may have got it wrong.

    One of us is ignorant – and most people here know who it is.

    Like

  3. “Tell me where you live so I can email this comment to the hall near you.”

    You’re a lying arsonist. You associate with sociopaths and help them cause more trouble because you gain personally out of it, as do other firemen because higher temperatures make fires more dangerous and more frequent and therefore make you more money.

    Your bias in wanting a warmer world is extremely obvious. You’re just in it for the cash bonus.

    Like

  4. “For myself, I’m pretty sure that Richard doesn’t “lie”.”

    So why is he saying that there is no increase in temperatures records and heatwaves over time anywhere on the planet when he’s already been shown a specific graph that shows otherwise?

    If you say something wrong then when corrected, stop saying it, then that is just a mistake (which for Dick is probably willful). If you continue saying it despite knowing now it’s wrong, it’s no longer a mistake, but a lie.

    Like

  5. “Wow, record setting temps has nothing to do with AGW”

    If you REALLY believed this, why are you saying that you have proved that heatwaves have not been seen by your analysis and therefore AGW is wrong?

    IF record temps are nothing to do with AGW, then the lack of their appearance has nothing to do with AGW either.

    But that statement is assinine and a real corker of a delusion from a sociopath.

    If AGW is warming, why wouldn’t a record setting temperature become more frequent? Explain, if you can.

    Like

  6. “adelady, keep in mind that stations along active tectonic zones alters the rate of rise (or fall). For example, the south coast of the UK is sinking, while Scotland is rising”

    Which is at max about 200ft in 10,000’s of years.

    Adiabatic lapse rate is 10degrees per mile. Therefore 200ft is 0.38C, over 10,000 years is 0.00038C per decade.

    Temperature rises are around 0.17C per decade from AGW in the past 60 years.

    Less than 2% of the signal COULD be due to rising or falling levels in the UK.

    Also, since this is a lapse rate and the REMOVAL of ice would give a lift, that 200ft change would only be seen as COOLING.

    And it’s not like they could account for this change in any case.

    Yet to your idiocy this effect is

    a) not accounted for
    b) going to hide the decline in temperatures you believe is going on

    Wrong and wrong.

    Like

  7. Hehe.

    Hey look, I’m just saying . . . we need to start assembling/voting on the Wakefield Highlight Reel.

    The t-test debacle R Simons caught will almost certainly have to be number 1 (“Fun with Undergrad Statistics”).

    Other contenders are:

    The Phantom Link
    The Weather Channel as Climate Science
    The Curious Case of Benjamin Laken
    Judith and Me

    Those come off the top of my head but if people could remind me of others that have been spotted I would seriously like to create a master list.

    Like

  8. Coby, you have attracted a poor bunch of human representatives. I will make sure this is well known elsewhere, way to go.

    Good bye.

    Like

  9. There’s also “High temperature records have nothing to do with AGW”, though that’s an eclipsing binary with “And Canda’s Tmax is decreasing, therefore AGW is wrong!”.

    Push one argument down, the other one pops up.

    Like

  10. What?!

    Richard for godsakes: What makes this humiliation any worse than all the others?

    Also, Wow, you have to remember that “And Canada’s Tmax is decreasing, therefore AGW is wrong!” needs an unwieldy addendum that saps some of its rhetorical sting. It technically needs to read:

    “And Canda’s Tmax is decreasing [and the statsy, sciency, signifancy, null-hypothesisy, trendsiness of this is not relevant, according to my daughter-in-law, who supervises the laying of pavement], therefore AGW is wrong!”

    Nonetheless if you want your candidate to be voted on appropriately you need to at least make it complete, you pathetic human representative.

    Like

  11. I will make sure this is well known elsewhere, way to go. Richard

    I suppose this means they will no longer speak highly of you over at Wattsupchuck and ClimateFraudit, Coby. Sorry.

    Like

  12. “you pathetic human representative.”

    Given Dick is supposedly human, I take this as a compliment…

    What also makes that addition is that it is another meta-class of Dick’s errors. The Eclipsing Binary error.

    Like

  13. I was sure @208 was someone complaining about Richard, going to scare away quality readers, until I saw it was his comment! Like skip said, there goes my creds with WUWT and Climate Etc commenters…so sad.

    It seems unlikely, but I sure hope Richard meant his goodbye, he is way beyond tiresome. That knight from Monty Python is pretty funny, but imagine if you were stuck sitting beside him on a long plane ride!

    Like

  14. OK, back to icesheets, sort of.

    I didn’t save it so it’s my own fault. I thought it was on Crock of the Week but I haven’t found it there. And I couldn’t identify it on the youtube index. So it’s probably (but not certainly) one of those university/ conference/ educational/ other presentations.

    The thing that captured my interest was that if Greenland alone melts, sea level around Scotland and Iceland is likely to _fall_ while it will rise much, much further away. Most importantly, the worldwide variations in SLR can be examined to estimate how much, if any, might be attributable to melting from GIS, WAIS or EAIS. If the SLR near Northern Europe is a lot higher/ faster than say around Australia, then it’s much more likely to be from Antarctica and not Greenland.

    It’s about gravity and uplift. Surely I’m not the only one who thought this was interesting – and had the good sense to both save it and index it correctly.

    Anyone?

    Like

  15. Just to clear up an erroneous statement made up thread. The change in height of land masses in the UK has got nothing to do with tectonic plates moving over one another. It is caused by post glacial rebound (aka glacial isostatic adjustment) which causes Scotland to be “uplifted” and southern England to be depressed (I bet you thought it was single malts and poor quality of English beers which caused the “uplifting” and depression respectively). The rates are quite substantial with a rate of 1 cm per year quite common.

    One of the positive advantages of the “uplifting” is the creation of “raised beaches” which make for the best of all golf courses.

    Like

  16. Thanks I’ve saved that now that I’ve seen it.

    The one I have in mind talks – 7-15 minutes maybe – about being able to identify which icesheet may have contributed to higher SLR in one place rather than another. After first talking about the notion being a bit of a surprise when examining ……. something else. Maybe GRACE?

    Don’t worry. I’ll have to track it down myself seeing as I’m the one who found it so absorbing – but not enough to ensure I had reliable access to the frustrating thing. Maybe one of the guys over at the ice blogs might know it.

    Like

  17. “I bet you thought it was single malts and poor quality of English beers which caused the “uplifting” and depression respectively”

    Poor compared to what?

    Them’s fighting words, made.

    (if you’re going to compare Brit lagers with foreign ones, then fair enough, but if you’re going to use *real* beers vs lagers, we’re not going to talk again..!)

    Like

  18. I was sitting at home last night watching an old episode of ‘Star Gate – Atlantis’ (what can I say, I’m a nerd) when the truth hit me!

    We all laugh at deniers and some of their claims, and we are all banging on about how their claims are incompatible with the known laws of physics etc, and that they are internally inconsistent. But over the last couple of weeks we have all been commenting on two issues; the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and the ‘interesting’ claims made by the author of a link provided by Michael of Brisbane.

    And here is the ‘spooky’ bit. Have a look at this claim made by Michael’s author – but don’t laugh just yet!
    http://www.helium.com/items/680599-assessing-the-reality-of-atlantis

    Now have a look at the evidence:
    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2009/07/atlantis-at-last.html

    It would seem there is internal consistency in some of these claims. Greenland once WAS green; however, it wasn’t because of the MWP. It was because it used to be at the equator, and because it really is Atlantis.

    Perhaps the next time someone tries to make the argument about Greenland once being green, we should respond with this information. It would be fascinating to see the reaction.

    Like

  19. Yes, but mandas there is some inconsitency there – the map he shows in your second link has to be flipped to make the point. But as he states in the link below:

    “The landmasses of the Earth exhibit many creature-like shapes, mostly incomplete or otherwise tantalizingly vague, but many like Africa are quite striking and clear. And they are almost all upright on the globe of the Earth, with north defined as “up”-and that means they were not randomly positioned, but deliberately shaped and placed upright. The landmasses of the Earth were designed, as any child can see-and as mankind was taught, in its childhood, by the “gods”.” (my bold).

    http://newsblaze.com/story/20090619102218dale.nb/topstory.html

    So, if you have to flip the map to prove Atlantis, does that not mean all the creature-like shapes & faces will be upside-down?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s