|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 3, 2011 21:08:17 GMT 1
Thanks for the kind words. Quite a story from Willis - had a few scrapes myself.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 28, 2011 14:11:40 GMT 1
Latest research on sea level* debunks the claim of "acceleration" due to a warming temperature and glacier melt. In fact the rate of rise in sea level, which has been happening for millenia, is claimed to be diminishing, with sea level actually falling in some places. “ worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years” Posted on March 28, 2011 by Anthony Watts wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/#comment-630571* Journal of Coastal Research Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analysesby J. R. Houston Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. james.r.houston@usace.army.mil and R. G. Dean Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. dean@coastal.ufl.edu AbstractWithout sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records. www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 28, 2011 14:45:47 GMT 1
BTW Louise, do you know what causes Glaciers?
Clouds snowing! And if Glaciers are retreating it will be because there is a reduction in snowfall. And why could that be? Fewer clouds? Drier air?
And how do you get drier air? Well, the best way is to make it colder so the moisture is precipitated out. And the air will not hold as many clouds and it wil not snow as much.
So, I worry that the retreating glaciers means our air is getting colder! The sun is not heating us up as much .. which means that it isn't carrying as much moisture! Less snow, less rain, too! Agh! Global Cooling! An Ice Age is coming!
You have my permission to panic.
(But is is all OK really, because fewer clouds means more sunlight hitting the surface and not being reflected into space, so we will stay warm. . so you can stop panicking now)
Jeez, Louise ... didn't you do ANY geography at school? (If you were a Yank, you'd have an excuse. But if you were a Brit, you can blame it on crap teachers who dint learn you enough. That so, Eammon? )
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Mar 28, 2011 20:59:53 GMT 1
Sea level rises in some places but falls in others? Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 28, 2011 21:09:40 GMT 1
Sea level rises in some places but falls in others? Interesting. Happens every day!
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 28, 2011 22:57:32 GMT 1
If you live opposite the Isle of Wight, you are going down. But if you live up in Sutherland, you are on the up!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 16, 2011 9:40:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 25, 2011 8:37:31 GMT 1
Just a little helpful clarification about the role of glaciers on the Indian subcontinent (and elsewhere). George Monbiot, Guardian 27 January 2000 The Himalayan glaciers are retreating so fast that the rivers may dry up in the summer by 2040. The results, if that happens, will be catastrophic.Dr Bob Bradnock, geographer, Letter to the Guardian, 4 February 2000 Sadly, in seeking to make easy points about global warming [Monbiot] has got his "facts" wrong. Glaciers contribute virtually nothing to the flow of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Indus rivers, which depend primarily on monsoon rain and to a much lesser extent on snow melt (not glacier melt).
There has been no long term decline in precipitation in the Himalaya. The idea that the glaciers are retreating so fast that the rivers may dry up by the summer of 2040 displays an embarrassing ignorance of the normal hydrological cycle of all these rivers, whose low flow period is in the winter, and which in summer continue to pour water down from the Himalaya.
Nor is Bangladesh being submerged by sea-level rises with massive refugee consequences. In fact the Ganges delta is witnessing a continued net growth in its surface area. The degree to which Bangladesh alone has dramatically increased food production and industrial output in the last 20 years suggests that there are far more practical and feasible steps to tackling poverty and security than George turning off his kettle.
Robert W Bradnock Department of Geography, School of Oriental and African StudiesGeorge Monbiot, The Guardian, 29 July 2009 India is finally lumbering into action on climate change.
Though this country is likely to be hit harder than almost anywhere else by the climate crash, not least because its food production is largely dependent on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers, which are rapidly retreating, it has almost been a point of pride in India not to respond to the requests of richer nations to limit its emissions.Scientific American today www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=research-casts-doubt-doomsday-water-shortage-predictionsA growing number of studies based on satellite data and stream chemistry analyses have found that far less surface water comes from glacier melt than previously assumed. In Peru's Rio Santa, which drains the Cordilleras Blanca mountain range, glacier contribution appears to be between 10 and 20 percent. In the eastern Himalayas, it is less than 5 percent.... more here bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/10/24/glacial-george.html#comments
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 25, 2011 8:55:56 GMT 1
"A glacier is just the contents of a dam in ice form, it just delays the water on its gravitation route, it can't make or destroy water."
Oct 24, 2011 at 10:37 PM | breath of fresh air on Bishop Hill
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 25, 2011 11:41:19 GMT 1
Full article from The Scientific American New Research Casts Doubt on Doomsday Water Shortage PredictionsBy measuring the isotopes in river water, scientists have determined that mountain glaciers contribute less than thought to downstream water supplies By Lisa Friedman and ClimateWire October 24, 2011 MELTDOWN: The melting of mountain glaciers around the world may not contribute as much to water supplies as thought, new research argues. From the Andes to the Himalayas, scientists are starting to question exactly how much glaciers contribute to river water used downstream for drinking and irrigation. The answers could turn the conventional wisdom about glacier melt on its head. A growing number of studies based on satellite data and stream chemistry analyses have found that far less surface water comes from glacier melt than previously assumed. In Peru's Rio Santa, which drains the Cordilleras Blanca mountain range, glacier contribution appears to be between 10 and 20 percent. In the eastern Himalayas, it is less than 5 percent. "If anything, that's probably fairly large," said Richard Armstrong, a senior research scientist at the Boulder, Colo.-based Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), who studies melt impact in the Himalayas. "Most of the people downstream, they get the water from the monsoon," Armstrong said. "It doesn't take away from the importance [of glacier melt], but we need to get the science right for future planning and water resource assessments." The Himalayan glaciers feed into Asia's biggest rivers: the Indus, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the Yellow and Yangtze rivers in China. Early studies pegged the amount of meltwater in these river basins as high as 60 or 70 percent. But reliable data on how much water the glaciers release or where that water goes have been difficult to develop. Satellite images can't provide such regular hydrometeorological observations, and expeditions take significant time, money and physical exertion. New methods, though, are refining the ability to study this and other remote glacial mountain ranges. Increasingly, scientists are finding that the numbers vary depending on the river, and even in different parts of the same river. Creeping hyperbole"There has been a lot of misinformation and confusion about it," said Peter Gleick, co-director of the California-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. "About 1.3 billion people live in the watersheds that get some glacier runoff, but not all of those people depend only on the water from those watersheds, and not all the water in those watersheds comes from glaciers. Most of it comes from rainwater," he said. A key step forward came last year when scientists at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, using remote sensing equipment, found that snow and glacier melt is extremely important to the Indus and Brahmaputra basins, but less critical to others. In the Indus, they found, the meltwater contribution is 151 percent compared to the total runoff generated at low elevations. It makes up about 27 percent of the Brahmaputra -- but only between 8 and 10 percent for the Ganges, Yangtze and Yellow rivers. Rainfall makes up the rest. That in itself is significant, and could reduce food security for 4.5 percent of the population in an already-struggling region. Yet, scientists complain, data are often inaccurately incorporated in dire predictions of Himalayan glacial melt impacts. "Hyperbole has a way of creeping in here," said Bryan Mark, an assistant professor of geography at Ohio State University and a researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center. Mark, who focuses on the Andes region, developed a method of determining how much of a community's water supply is glacier-fed by analyzing the hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in water samples. He recently took that experience to Nepal, where he collected water samples from the Himalayan glacier-fed Kosi River as part of an expedition led by the Mountain Institute. Based on his experience in the Rio Santa -- where it was once assumed that 80 percent of water in the basin came from glacier melt -- Mark said he expects to find that the impact of monsoon water is greatly underestimated in the Himalayas. Jeff La Frenierre, a graduate student at Ohio State University, is studying Ecuador's Chimborazo glacier, which forms the headwaters of three different watershed systems, serving as a water source for thousands of people. About 35 percent of the glacier coverage has disappeared since the 1970s. La Frenierre first came to Ecuador as part of Engineers Without Borders to help build a water system, and soon started to ask what changes in the mountain's glacier coverage would mean for the irrigation and drinking needs of the 200,000 people living downstream. Working with Mark and analyzing water streams, he said, is upending many of his assumptions. Doomsday descriptions don't fit"The easy hypothesis is that it's going to be a disaster here. I don't know if that's the case," La Frenierre said. He agreed that overstatements about the impacts are rampant in the Himalayas as well, saying, "The idea that 1.4 billion people are going to be without water when the glaciers melt is just not the case. It's a local problem; it's a local question. There are places that are going to be more impacted than other places." Those aren't messages that environmental activists will likely find easy to hear. Armstrong recalled giving a presentation in Kathmandu on his early findings to a less-than-appreciative audience. "I didn't agree with the doomsday predictions, and I didn't have anything that was anywhere near spectacular," Armstrong said. But, he added, "At the same time, it's just basic Earth science, and we want to do a better job than we have been." The more modest numbers, they and other scientists stressed, don't mean that glacier melt is unimportant to river basins. Rather, they said, they mean that the understanding of water systems throughout the Himalayan region must improve and water management decisions will need to be made at very local levels. "We need to know at least where the water comes from," Armstrong said. "How can we project into the future if we don't know where the water comes from now?" Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 3, 2011 11:15:21 GMT 1
Interesting and long post from Max "manacker" on Climate Etc about variation in European glaciers commenting on the work of Austrian glaciologist, Prof. Patzelt and others. judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/#comment-145697(The whole thread, initiated with a long, thoughtful post by Tonyb, is excellent - the very best of what the blogosphere can offer!) -------------- ... Austrian glaciologist, Prof. Patzelt. His study, based on carbon-dated tree remains, which were recovered under receding alpine glaciers, gives a clear picture of smaller glacier extent than today in several periods over the past 10,000 years. In one of the studies you cited, he has related this to averaged temperatures for these periods.
Interestingly, Patzelt finds that over most of the past 10,000 years, temperature was warmer than today, and the time around 1850 was very likely the period of maximum glacial extent over the 10,000 years.
I have seen independent studies from the Swiss Alps by Prof. Schlüchter at the University of Bern, coming to similar conclusions.
This is interesting, because this is also around the time that modern measurements of glacial retreat started.
While most of the data derived by these glacier studies precedes the early 16th century decline, which you describe, I have seen another record of alpine silver and gold mines being covered up by the advancing snow and ice around this time. One report tells us www.wissen.de/wde/generator/wissen/ressorts/natur/naturgewalten-lexikon/g/index,page=1578088.html
Translation:
“One example of medium-term fluctuations in the glacier extent was the Little Ice Age.
Although the glaciers were smaller than today during the Middle Ages, there was a general cooling in the 17th century leading to a strong expansion of the glacial extent, which reached its high point around 1850. During this period the annual average temperatures were around one degree Celcius colder than today.
Around 1600, 1640 and 1680, the glaciers advanced deep into the forests in the eastern Alps. In the higher altitudes old mines were covered up by advancing glacial ice.
Since the modern high point of the glaciers around 1850 they have been receding, with a few noted interruptions.”
This report from Gastein describes how a silver and gold mine was covered up by advancing ice around this time: sagen.at/texte/sagen/oesterreich/salzburg/pongau/gastein/schatzsagen.html
Translation:
“As rich as the gold veins had been over centuries, the deposits gradually dwindled. The mines had been exhausted and new deposits had not been found, mining activity slowed down and the glaciers advanced into the high valleys, where humans could no longer live.
The local population could not understand why this was happening, and saw in it a sign that they were being punished for their sins and misdeeds.”
Translation:
“This legend covers the region near Bockart. The Bockart Lake covers immense buried riches in gold and silver. In place of the lake there was once a rich high valley; gold and silver could be seen in every boulder crack. But this blessing brought the self-destruction of the people; they could no longer control their wantonness; especially the miners reveled and feasted. They threw silver platters at targets and drank wine out of golden cups, mistreated the poor and blasphemed God incessantly.
Then the punishment of the Lord came. From one day to another the green landscape disappeared under snow and ice, which flowed down into the valley. In the bottom of the valley a lake formed from the melting snow, which swallowed up everything causing the rich deposits of Gold to be lost in its depth.”
As the record show, this was obviously a case of rapid anthropogenic climate change!
In an interview, the late climate science pioneer, Dr. Reid Bryson even reported about the remains of a medieval silver mine, which became exposed as a glacier retreated. www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
This report describes the reaction to the disappearance of the mine:
Translation: “In medieval times people could not believe that the worsening climate and the advancing glaciers were happening naturally, and saw in them the punishment by a higher being for the godless manner, in which both mine owners and miners had behaved.
Today many people are also unable to believe that the retreat of the glaciers and the climate change causing this are occurring for natural reasons. Again humans are being blamed, this time not for their ‘godlessness’, but instead for their ‘wasteful behavior’.
Déjà vu all over again?
Max
---------- Well, not quite deja vue, folks! Because back then the conditions of life really were deteriorating whereas today they are not and certain "scientists" are clearly suffering from apocalyptic religious groupthink.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Dec 3, 2011 12:29:25 GMT 1
As usual it's very difficult to tell which are your comments and which are quotes so I've ignored everything except the link. I wouldn't disagree that it's among the best that the blogosphere can offer - however that still leaves it as long, rambling, dishonest and irrelevant. I'll just give one example. Here's one of the first graphs to be shown: curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/1.jpgWhat the hell is that anomaly line doing? It's trying to pretend that there has been a gradual rise in temperature over the last few hundred years. However it's quite clear that there was a rise in temperature after the LIA, then a long relatively stable period then the more recent rise. Just another example of (badly implemented) dishonesty. I had a look through the rest of the link and there's plenty of other dodgy logic, but I think that one example of blatant dishonesty is enough.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 3, 2011 15:50:46 GMT 1
The anomaly line trend, nick, is showing the slow undulating rise of Central England Temperatures (the oldest instrumental record in the world) from 1659 to date. Hence the title of the OP -The Long Slow Thaw. The latest increase shown from 1989 is believed to be unduly influenced by Urban Heat Island effect since he whole of south-central UK is now behaving like one huge largely urbanised area and the data have not been adequately adjusted (downward) to account for this. Is there anything else I can explain to you, nick? But perhaps you could comment on the remarks from "manacker" about European glaciers which I have now highlighted in brown for the hard of understanding. It is because his remarks are about glaciers that I have included them on this, the GLACIERS thread, nick.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 6, 2012 12:58:34 GMT 1
The stupefying pace of glacier melt in the 1940s by simone Ulmer www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/091214_gletscherschwund_su/index_ENThe most recent studies by researchers at ETH (Federal Institute of Technology) Zurich show that in the 1940s Swiss glaciers were melting at an even-faster pace than at present. This is despite the fact that the temperatures in the 20th century were lower than in this century. Researchers see the main reason for this as the lower level of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere. In Switzerland, the increase in snow in wintertime and the glacier melt in summertime have been measured at measurement points at around 3,000 metres above sea level – on the Clariden Firn, the Great Aletsch glacier and the Silvretta glacier – without interruption for almost 100 years. As part of his doctoral work, Matthias Huss used this unique range of measurements to examine how climate change in the last century affected the glaciers. The work was carried out under the supervision of Martin Funk, professor and head of the Department for Glaciology at the Laboratory for Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (‘VAW’) at ETH Zurich, who is also co-author of the study. Solar radiation as the decisive factor In its work, the research team took into account the solar radiation measured on the Earth’s surface in Davos since 1934. Studies over the past two decades have shown that solar radiation varies substantially due to aerosols and clouds, and this is assumed to influence climate fluctuations. Recent years have seen the emergence of the terms ‘global dimming’ and ‘global brightening’ to describe these phenomena of reduced and increased solar radiation respectively. These two effects are currently the subject of more and more scientific research, in particular by ETH Zurich, as experts feel that they should be taken into account in the climate models (see ETH Life dated July 9, 2009) The new study, published in the journal ‘Geophysical Research Letters’, confirms this requirement. This is because, taking into account the data recorded for the level of solar radiation, the scientists made a surprising discovery: in the 1940s and in the summer of 1947 especially, the glaciers lost the most ice since measurements commenced in 1914. This is in spite of the fact that temperatures were lower than in the past two decades. “The surprising thing is that this paradox can be explained relatively easily with radiation”, says Huss, who was recently appointed to the post of senior lecturer at the Department of Geosciences at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. On the basis of their calculations, the researchers have concluded that the high level of short-wave radiation in the summer months is responsible for the fast pace of glacier melt. In the 1940s, the level was 8% higher than the long-term average and 18 Watts per square metres above the levels of the past ten years. Calculated over the entire decade of the 1940s, this resulted in 4% more snow and ice melt compared with the past ten years. Furthermore, the below-average melt rates at the measurement points during periods in which the glacier snouts were even advancing correlate with a phase of global dimming, between the 1950s and the 1980s. Less snow fall and longer melt periods The researchers arrived at their findings by calculating the daily melt rates with the aid of climate data and a temperature index model, based on the half-yearly measurements on the glaciers since 1914. These results were then compared with the long-term measurements of solar radiation in Davos. Huss points out that the strong glacier melt in the 1940s puts into question the assumption that the rate of glacier decline in recent years “has never been seen before”. “Nevertheless”, says the glaciologist, “this should not lead people to conclude that the current period of global warming is not really as big of a problem for the glaciers as previously assumed”. This is because it is not only the pace at which the Alpine glaciers are currently melting that is unusual, but the fact that this sharp decline has been unabated for 25 years now. Another aspect to consider – and this is evidenced by the researchers’ findings – is that temperature-based opposing mechanisms came into play around 30 years ago. These have led to a 12% decrease in the amount of precipitation that falls as snow as a percentage of total precipitation, accompanied by an increase of around one month in the length of the melt period ever since this time. Scientists warn that these effects could soon be matched by the lower level of solar radiation we have today compared with the 1940s. Reference Huss M, Funk M & Ohmura A: Strong Alpine glacier melt in the 1940s due to enhanced solar radiation. Geophysical Research Letters (2009), 36, L23501, doi:10.1029/2009GL040789
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 9, 2012 20:57:55 GMT 1
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study showsMeltwater from Asia's peaks is much less than previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.... (He'd lose his funding otherwise) The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy. Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber www.bris.ac.uk/geography/research/bgc/ , who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero." more here www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
|
|