Slashdot Mirror
Once-Shrinking Greenland Glacier Is Now Growing, NASA Study Shows (nbcnews.com)
kenh shares a report from NBC News: A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds. The Jakobshavn (YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday's Nature Geoscience. Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation -- a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific. The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago, study authors said. While this is "good news" on a temporary basis, this is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought, said NASA climate scientist Josh Willis, a study co-author. Over the decades the water has been and will be warming from man-made climate change, he said, noting that about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
For some evidence of global warming. It's been decades now, and everything they've shown us as evidence has turned out not to be the case.
I wonder if in fifty years they'll be going on about global warming, even when it still isn't happening?
Here you go: http://berkeleyearth.org/globa..., now rejoice in the fact that your life long quest is over. Perhaps you can spend the rest of your life waiting for Trickle-down economics to start working?
but what are the scientists saying, because there is a lot of sensationalism in the media of what they are saying and there is what they are really saying. What they are really saying is all sorts of things but not a unified consensus about what will happen and what the cause of what has happened is. There is a problem with media and true believers (not yourself probably) who have spouted stuff and then they followed up by staying with the program. There is a thing called climate gate. When chicken little runs around saying the sky is falling he gets enough media attention and says everything that happens is a sign of the end of the world and what not it becomes difficult to sift out the crap and get to the truth. Have a look at climate gate and you may get a insight into the mindset here. None of that proves anything just that there is a lot of fud. For example these glaciers were supposed to disappear now they are not disappearing but it is bad news and some people expect us all to stay convinced and fearful about the end of world in 7 years. Some of us are a little jaded by the climate stuff being the end of the world and every news story having to follow the same path.
Try reading up on the Permian–Triassic extinction event it was caused by an 8 degree increase in global temperatures due to CO2 emissions (or a breakdown of the carbon cycle as scientists called it) it killed every terrestrial animal over 5 kg in weight and 96% of all marine species. I don't know if you'd call that the end of the world but in my book it is pretty close and even if the damage is limited to a subset of what happened during the PT event is bad all on it's own. We have currently raised the temperature of the planet by 1 degree over pre-industrial levels so that's 1/8th of the P/T event increase and we are on track for 2-4 which is 1/4 to 1/2 of the PT event if nothing is done and so far the increase in temperature has always beaten projections because of unforeseen feedback loops. The thing is that if the temperature increase reaches a certain point the warming became a runaway process in the past and there is no reason to believe the same won't happen this time.
I call bullshit on your argument. That's the same logical fault that is used by the anti-vax movement: because there is one "scientist" that published a link between autism and vaccination, the science is not settled. Let's just ignore that this "scientist" had his paper and approbation revoked for gross misconduct.
The question of "Is the human burning of fossil fuels affecting the world climate?" is settled. There is a small number of nay-Sayers, many with political and financial reasons, but that's completely normal. The on-going debate is only about the precise impact. Much of the projections in research papers is by nature conservative. Not in the political sense, but in the sense of "let's assume the unknown factors compensate as much as reasonable possible for humanities impact". Of course, media likes to quote the most dramatic projection instead, so for the layman it might look like drawing doomsday scenarios. A 50 feet raise of the ocean level doesn't sound that extreme, e.g. if you compare with https://xkcd.com/1225/ Not a scientific source and there is a ~10% difference in density between ice and water, but good enough.
Some of the big open questions are "Where is all the extra energy going that we do not see?" and "How does the raising ocean temperature affect the ocean and air circulation streams?". The former is difficult to answer because temperature monitoring for the world oceans is spotty at best. It's also an insanely large reservoir of storage capacity for heat, so small temperature changes reflect vast amounts of energy. The latter question is difficult to answer because there are a lot of small scale and large scale interactions all getting mixed up.
But with all those open questions, the data base is getting better every day and the quality of the models used is improving constantly as well. So far, the actual data has pretty consistently out-paced the conservative predictions for the temperature raise. That should be deeply troubling to everyone...
That was never proven and never a scientific theory.
That was a view of the world that was assumed, not scientifically proven. Even though some scientists worked to make their models fit that assumption, it was "disproven" by theories using better measurements..
That idea came from was a religious scholar who added up all the begats in the bible to come up with an estimated age. It had nothing to do with science.
That was speculation made when the Milankovitch cycles were first becoming known. It seemed that if those cycles held true, we would be returning to a glaciation maximum in the next few thousand years, give or take a few thousand, and it was unkown how quickly that might occur. Combined with the cold winters in the 70s that gave the press something sensational to write, but it had nothing to do with scientific proof.
Genesis 1:28: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
I didn't make their rules, I only quote them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's complicated by the fact that a central tenet of the religion is the idea that priests must interpret the words for you.
That is not a central tenet of the religion.