Slashdot Mirror
The Icelandic Families Tracking Climate Change With Measuring Tape (undark.org)
Gloria Dickie, writing for Undark Magazine: A 30-meter Komelon-branded measuring tape, a pencil, and a yellow paper form are all Hallsteinn Haraldsson carries with him when he travels to the Snaefellsnes Peninsula in western Iceland. But unfurling the measuring tape before me at his home in Mosfellsbaer, a town just outside of Reykjavik, he says it is a significant upgrade from the piece of marked rope he used to bring along. With 11 percent of the landmass covered in ice, rapidly ebbing glaciers are threatening to reshape Iceland's landscape, and Haraldsson, 74, is part of a contingent of volunteer glacier monitors who are at the frontlines of tracking the retreat. Every autumn, Haraldsson, often accompanied by his wife and son, sets off on foot to measure the changes in his assigned glacier.
Their rudimentary tools are a far cry from the satellites and time-lapse photography deployed around the world in recent decades to track ice loss, and lately, there's been talk of disbanding this nearly century-old, low-tech network of monitors. But this sort of ground-truthing work has more than one purpose: With Iceland's glaciers at their melting point, these men and women -- farmers, schoolchildren, a plastic surgeon, even a Supreme Court judge -- serve not only as the glaciers' guardians, but also their messengers. Today, some 35 volunteers monitor 64 measurement sites around the country. The numbers they collect are published in the Icelandic scientific journal Jokull, and submitted to the World Glacier Monitoring Service database. Vacancies for glacier monitors are rare and highly sought-after, and many glaciers have been in the same family for generations, passed down to sons and daughters, like Haraldsson, when the journey becomes too arduous for their aging watchmen. It's very likely one of the longest-running examples of citizen climate science in the world. But in an age when precision glacier tracking can be conducted from afar, it remains unclear whether, or for how long, this sort of heirloom monitoring will continue into the future. It's a question even some of the network's own members have been asking.
Their rudimentary tools are a far cry from the satellites and time-lapse photography deployed around the world in recent decades to track ice loss, and lately, there's been talk of disbanding this nearly century-old, low-tech network of monitors. But this sort of ground-truthing work has more than one purpose: With Iceland's glaciers at their melting point, these men and women -- farmers, schoolchildren, a plastic surgeon, even a Supreme Court judge -- serve not only as the glaciers' guardians, but also their messengers. Today, some 35 volunteers monitor 64 measurement sites around the country. The numbers they collect are published in the Icelandic scientific journal Jokull, and submitted to the World Glacier Monitoring Service database. Vacancies for glacier monitors are rare and highly sought-after, and many glaciers have been in the same family for generations, passed down to sons and daughters, like Haraldsson, when the journey becomes too arduous for their aging watchmen. It's very likely one of the longest-running examples of citizen climate science in the world. But in an age when precision glacier tracking can be conducted from afar, it remains unclear whether, or for how long, this sort of heirloom monitoring will continue into the future. It's a question even some of the network's own members have been asking.
We even got a new highest waterfall several years back. The highest used to be Glymur, at the bottom of Hvalfjörður (very pretty waterfall, BTW, strongly recommend the hike out to it). But Morsárjökull (a terminal glacier of Vatnajökull, the giant glacier in the southeast) receded up a cliff, leaving a series of waterfalls - Morsárfossar - which are taller than Glymur (but not as pretty).
Jesus: "Son of a
True enough, it is the oceans that rise to swallow the islands, islands rarely sink into the oceans.
OK, troll. If you want to follow the money, who has more to gain: scientists looking for research money or the fossil fuel industries?
I don't respond to AC's.
”But in an age when precision glacier tracking can be conducted from afar, it remains unclear whether, or for how long, this sort of heirloom monitoring will continue into the future. It's a question even some of the network's own members have been asking.”
If nothing else, it’s still a good excuse for an outing.
#DeleteChrome
"Such findings werenâ(TM)t uncommon during that period: In the 1930s, many of the countryâ(TM)s glaciers had retreated significantly due to an unusually warm climate, but beginning in 1970, they advanced once more until human-caused climate change beat them back again."
So in the 1930s it was natural, but now oh noes it's the evil mankind making them retreat.
I smell B.S.
If you want to follow the money, who has more to gain: scientists looking for research money or the fossil fuel industries?
Even most FF companies accept AGW. Exxon was one of the few (along with Koch) that funded denialists, but they stopped when they were caught with their pants down: Using one set of projections to lie to the public, while using very different projections for their own internal financial forecasting.
I smell stupidity.
I don't respond to AC's.
How can they conclude that these glacier measurements are changing because of rising temperatures, when it's just as likely that it's due to natural periodic fluctuations in the melting point temperature of ice, or else due to natural expansion and contraction of all the rocks forming the island?
I was at a glacier recently, and there was a sign talking about how if the glacier kept melting due to global warming, it would vanish and no longer be able to be a source for water for the rivers it fed, and all the problems people downstream would have due to lack of water.
What they seemed to miss was the idea that if the glacier was NOT melting, there would also be no water downstream....
I get the idea. I'm afraid you do not. Snow doesn't melt instantly. And in fact in the vast majority of the world, snow and water do not land on glaciers and the land downstream does not flood every spring.
Even if you think landing on the glacier somehow changes this. Remember, every bit of snow that lands on the glacier melts every year (or at least the same amount of water) PLUS MORE. As such, someone living downstream from a glacier already gets more water every year than someone who does not. In fact the sign was very clear that the melting glacier itself was what provided enough water for the communities downstream. Something they would not have if the glacier was gone.
Of course it's also something they wouldn't have if the glacier weren't melting. But that text wouldn't fit the agenda of those who wrote the sign.
The government outspends any company hundreds to one in this area
That's 100% false.
https://www.statista.com/topic...:
Oil (and gas) companies are among the largest corporations worldwide. Among the top ten companies worldwide based on revenue, six are in the oil industry. In 2016, Anglo-Dutch giant Royal Dutch Shell reported almost 234 billion U.S. dollars of revenue. Thus, Shell was the third-largest company worldwide based on revenue in 2015. ExxonMobil from Irving, Texas generated a revenue reporting some 219 billion U.S. dollars in 2016. However, ExxonMobil claims the highest market value within this industry, as well as having the second-highest market value of all companies worldwide in 2015.
https://www.nationalpriorities...: In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget is $3.8 trillion.
So, no, the fossil fuel industry is probably larger than the entire US budget, making your statement 100% false.
I don't respond to AC's.
What they seemed to miss was the idea that if the glacier was NOT melting, there would also be no water downstream....
What you seem to miss is: glaciers are supposed to regrow in winter. So the average size is constant
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If it was "So the average size is constant" why the need to measure it? Why the need to tell the world its getting measured?
If it "regrow in winter" its not constant.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Think of the fun of talking about "climate change". With the graphs and people going out to measure the "climate change".
The results go back decades and show many changes. But now its all about the "climate change"...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In Iceland the motivation for citizen volunteer measurement of ice changes predates climate change alarmism by a millennium, and is an immediate practical need in a nation that centers on a series of icecaps that have volcanoes festering underneath them. When one of them erupts and the icecap around it melts, it can create a sudden jökulhlaup (their term for lahar) that dwarfs anything this side of the ice dam flood that formed the Channeled Scablands in Washington. Several of these have occurred in recent times, ripping out the road across the southern end of the island. You can see the twisted remnants of bridges that had to be rebuilt when this happened.
Because due to global warming the glaciers are shrinking, that means the average size over the course of a year gets less from year to year or decade to decade. As you surely know that: what kind of nonsense do you ask here?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Because over the last 40 or so years, the average size of glaciers has not been constant.
At best, instead of being stored, the water runs off quickly in the winter and isn't stored to smooth out the water curve for the rest of the year.
At worst, climate change has also altered where the rain is falling so enough water no longer falls on the glacier and at some point, the area will become arid after the stored up water is gone.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The government outspends any company hundreds to one in this area. So I think it's pretty easy to see which side of this you need to be on if you actually want your research to get any funding.
You don't think if fossil fuel companies actually thought they could seriously put a dent in what climate scientists have found that they wouldn't be throwing money at research to do so? The Koch brothers gave $150,000 to the Berkeley Earth group because they thought they would show that the other government funded temperature records were biased but in the end their result confirmed that they were all correct within the margins of uncertainty.
Science is what it is and in the long run is immune distorting the results just because you prefer a different outcome. In the short run people can try to put spin on it but reality will catch up the that sooner or later. Climate science has been pretty intensely scrutinized for around 30 years now yet no one has seriously challenged the basic findings.
I was at a glacier recently, and there was a sign talking about how if the glacier kept melting due to global warming, it would vanish and no longer be able to be a source for water for the rivers it fed, and all the problems people downstream would have due to lack of water.
What they seemed to miss was the idea that if the glacier was NOT melting, there would also be no water downstream....
The size of a glacier is dependent on the balance between the snow it receives each year and the amount of melt over the year. If the glacier is growing it's receiving more snow than is melting. If the glacier is shrinking it's receiving less snow than is melting. If it shrinks to the point of disappearing then melt that keeps rivers going late in the summer/fall will also disappear changing the pattern of water flow often to the detriment of those who depend on the river.
Iceland has actually risen out of the Atlantic ocean with the retreat of the ice since the end of the last ice age.
The sheer weight of the ice sitting on top of it during the ice age caused the island to sink down.
This can be seen around the coastal areas where the coast is flat and then rises dramatically to a plateau.
Are you being sarcastic or is it really too hard to go to the NOAA site and download it?
And those pesky receding glaciers are just another example of scientists fiddling the data!
Indeed. The conspiracy-minded types also don't seem to understand how difficult it would be to maintain the conspiracy required to falsify data, etc. A friend of mine is a climate scientist (he might lie to tell his daughter her painting of him is a masterpiece, not much else), so he'd have to be in on it. It seems very unlikely. He's not flush wish cash so obviously being part of this global conspiracy doesn't pay that well.
So in the 1930s it was natural, but now oh noes it's the evil mankind making them retreat.
I smell B.S.
No, in the 1930s it was human too.
I get the idea. I'm afraid you do not.
Your following text suggests you don't get the idea.
The snow pack gaining snow and then melting ensures that the water from the snow is released at a slow rate, notably in summer when it is needed the most. If it falls just as snow directly then it melts in its entirety over a few days in spring, and comes as a rush, then it stops. Where I used to live if there was a heavy snowfall that then melted you could be pretty sure the local river would flood two days later. It didn't stop it running very low in the summer following.
By using the same method passed down across generations, consistent data is collected.
Future high tech methods could be employed, but compared to age old methods.
Go well
Arguing your incredulity is not a very wise thing. Something can be true even if you don't think it is.
As though it ever stops bloody raining in Iceland..
I'm not sure Iceland's economy is based on growing much of anything. Have you been there? Nutrient rich soil isn't a key terrain feature.
What may be more interesting is whether warmer weather attracts even more tourists. The whole island felt overrun when I went there and it's apparently getting worse by the year.
(Yeah, I was part of the problem)
I'll agree that has more possible merit than the article's statement.
I am rationally pointing out a recurring or cyclical phenomenon might not have a new and different cause for the most recent instance. It is unwise for you to assume the article is correct merely because it's something you want to believe.
I didn't say there was a conspiracy. That's 100% in your camp. You think the oil companies are colluding to hide AGW. I'm pointing out that almost all the funding comes from government, not oil companies, so that seems entirely implausible.
Science doesn't care who funds it. But researchers do. And you need to know who pays the bills if you want to keep funded.
Science also doesn't care what you think the results should be. Regardless of who's paying the bills the science is what it is. The vast majority of climate science research is payed for by governments and other public sources because that's how basic scientific research gets funded in today's world. Private enterprise scientific research is mostly aimed at producing profitable results over the short term so they don't fund a lot of science that doesn't have a clear short term payoff. If fossil fuel companies thought climate scientists were wrong and distorting their results for whatever reason they'd be paying for research to show that to protect their profits.
No, sorry, jokullhlaups (hey, how'd you get Slashdot to swallow an o-umlaut - it doesn't like mine!) are not lahars. Lahars are rainfall loosened landslides of soil and/ or fresh ash coming down the slopes of a volcano. Jokullhlaups are caused by the rapid emptying of a sub-glacial lake formed by an eruption under the icecap (could also be steam venting from a fumarole field). As the water breaks out of the icecap it will typically pick up a lot of glacial debris from the surrounds, so the effects on anything downstream are similarly devastating but there can be a delay of months between the eruption and the jokullhlaup. The eruption may not even break the ice surface - the Grimsvotn eruption of about 2008 was going for nearly a month before it broke through to open air - so the outside world might never know about it apart from the earthquakes.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
They got the memo, but not being written in their language, but in American English, they didn't bother to read it.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The entire point of ground truthing a measurement is to check that the remote instruments are actually working correctly.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"