Greenland Glacier Loses Nearly 3 Miles Of Ice...Overnight.

Posted in the Global Warming Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Northie

Spokane, WA

#1 Jul 14, 2010
And so the melt continues, faster...and faster...

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/07/14/g... --overnight/
Earthling

Spain

#2 Jul 15, 2010
Calving, by any stretch of one's imagination, cannot be termed, melting.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#3 Jul 15, 2010
"Calving"? Is that what you call the instant collapse of square miles of glacier?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#4 Jul 15, 2010
Northie wrote:
"Calving"? Is that what you call the instant collapse of square miles of glacier?
Me thinks that Northie did not even bother to read the article he posted. The headline seemed to go along with his need to be afraid so he posted it. The article also calls this "calving" and also states that it is not an unprecedented event.

Kook
Earthling

Spain

#5 Jul 16, 2010
kookboy wrote:
Methinks that Northie did not even bother to read the article he posted. The headline seemed to go along with his need to be afraid so he posted it. The article also calls this "calving" and also states that it is not an unprecedented event.
Kook
Norfie would be well advised to learn something, instead of treating every occurrence as another catastrophic event on the road to doom.
Here's an article on calving ice:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/iceshelves.html

I understand that our old friend gravity has a lot to do with it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#6 Jul 16, 2010
Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-One-Why-...
Earthling

Spain

#7 Jul 16, 2010
"There's more than one way to skin a cat."

There's more than one reason why ice sheets lose ice.
Melting, seismic activity, active faults in extensional and contractional tectonic settings, flooding beneath ice sheets, volcanic activity and many other reasons, not forgetting gravity.
Peter Jones

Lower Hutt, New Zealand

#8 Jul 16, 2010
"On July 15th 1942 two B17 Flying Fortresses and six P38 Lightnings were flying from the U.S to England were forced to make emergency landings on Greenlands Southern Ice Cap the crews were rescued but the planes were all left on the ice .In 1988 Pat Epps an Richard taylor led a team to find these missing planes they expected to find them within 40 feet of the surface.They did not.After several years of failure .They found them in 1992 1 mile from the landing site and 268 feet below the ice surface!The team used hot water to dig a tunnel to locate then extract one of the planes.Dubbed the Glacier Girl it was restored and is now flying again.The planes did not sink to a depth of 268 feet nor did the Glacier push them down to that depth if that were the case they
would've been ripped apart rather 268 feet of ice accumulated on them from 1942 to 1992".

Global Warming or Global Governance
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#9 Jul 16, 2010
Northie wrote:
"Calving"? Is that what you call the instant collapse of square miles of glacier?
Anything to distract from the obvious. But anyone with an IQ over twenty can look at the longer term retreat (see http://tinyurl.com/2e87gkv , lower illustration ) to now that this is hardly a 'calving' of the glacier. With calving you don't get more than a small difference in the endpoint. You don't 'calve' a chunk of ice 2.7 square miles in extent.

http://www.physorg.com/news198170203.html

It is, however, probably good evidence of the effect of warmer ocean currents 'undermining' the head end of glacier outlets. And the effect of reduced 'drag' on the glacier makes it a good place to watch for further glacier flow speedup.

Not that Jakobshavn Isbrae wasn't already speeding up drastically.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/121650main_Joughin_Na...

Draining about 6.5% of the total Greenland Ice sheet, this is an IMPORTANT change in the landscape, not just a glitch in the data.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#10 Jul 16, 2010
Peter Jones wrote:
The planes did not sink to a depth of 268 feet nor did the Glacier push them down to that depth if that were the case they
would've been ripped apart rather 268 feet of ice accumulated on them from 1942 to 1992".
Global Warming or Global Governance
Well DUH. Are you just learning how glaciers work?? The sixty years accumulation of snow is NECESSARY to balance the flow of ice away from the center in order to keep the glacier STABLE.

More snow than discharge means the glacier gets bigger. More discharge than new snow means the glacier gets smaller.

The current balance ( http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL0... ) is about 82 cubic kilometers of ice is LOST every year. And this is likey to increase again with the shorter flow path and resistance of the truncated Jackoshaven glacier.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#11 Jul 16, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Draining about 6.5% of the total Greenland Ice sheet, this is an IMPORTANT change in the landscape, not just a glitch in the data.
So will this have an "IMPORTANT" effect on sea levels? If so... how much and when?
Sincerely,
koolaid

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#12 Jul 16, 2010
Earthling wrote:
"There's more than one way to skin a cat."
There's more than one reason why ice sheets lose ice.
Melting, seismic activity, active faults in extensional and contractional tectonic settings, flooding beneath ice sheets, volcanic activity and many other reasons, not forgetting gravity.
No, no, no. It is all due to global warming and we are all gonna die! So sayeth the Gorical.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#13 Jul 16, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything to distract from the obvious. But anyone with an IQ over twenty can look at the longer term retreat (see http://tinyurl.com/2e87gkv , lower illustration ) to now that this is hardly a 'calving' of the glacier. With calving you don't get more than a small difference in the endpoint. You don't 'calve' a chunk of ice 2.7 square miles in extent.
Looks like Lessy didn't bother to read the article either before commenting on it.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#14 Jul 16, 2010
kookboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no, no. It is all due to global warming and we are all gonna die! So sayeth the Gorical.
Looks like someone got up on the wrong side of the Beck this morning.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#15 Jul 16, 2010
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
So will this have an "IMPORTANT" effect on sea levels? If so... how much and when?
Sincerely,
koolaid
Since you claim is a red herring or strawman not consistent with my post, I will ignore it.

Fact is that sea level is likely more at risk from the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet which is destabilizing and risks sudden collapse while the Greenland ice sheet is solidly supported by rock and will take centuries to decline.

http://tinyurl.com/ya2sy93
The 'grounding line' that provides support is receding and may detach leading the glacier flowing over water, not land.

http://tinyurl.com/2bp4hta

And here, we see evidence that this has occured, and more evidence of a rapid increase in flow resulting.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#16 Jul 16, 2010
kookboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like Lessy didn't bother to read the article either before commenting on it.
This technique of claiming a rebuttal is 'offside' puzzles me. Anyone can look to see that I have provided the references to support every point. What does such garbage posts as Kook Boys gain?
Earthling

Spain

#17 Jul 17, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
You don't 'calve' a chunk of ice 2.7 square miles in extent.
Correct, "you don't," it just happens.
In the Larsen B Ice Shelf event, which reduced the shelf to a size not seen for about 12,000 years, a 3,275-square-kilometer (1,260-square-mile) sector disintegrated over the course of 35 days.

Read more: Glaciers, Ice Sheets, and Climate Change - river, sea, temperature, important, largest, salinity, human http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Glacie...
Or don't you consider that to have been a 'calving' event?
Earthling

Spain

#18 Jul 17, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Anyone can look to see that I have provided the references to support every point.
That's a rarity for you.
Normally you rely on bluster and bafflegab to support the many arguments you fail to cite references for.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#19 Jul 19, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>Correct, "you don't," it just happens.<quoted text>Or don't you consider that to have been a 'calving' event?
He just doesn't know what "calving" means.

Calving -(geology) The breaking off of a mass of ice from its parent glacier, iceberg, or ice shelf.
Earthling

Spain

#20 Jul 19, 2010
kookboy wrote:
He just doesn't know what "calving" means.
Calving -(geology) The breaking off of a mass of ice from its parent glacier, iceberg, or ice shelf.
Maybe he thinks it's an ice sheet giving birth to baby icebergs, which in a way I suppose it is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
EDITORIAL: Rajendra Pachauri resigns U.N. globa... 5 min SpaceBlues 1
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min SpaceBlues 51,320
Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 1 hr Acolyte 7
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 2 hr Niqisam 4,049
Oceans Are Not Acidic; Global Warming Dogma Is ... 2 hr IBdaMann 45
Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 4 hr litesong 1,980
Ita s Simple: Global Warming Is Causing the Ext... (Jul '12) 5 hr Snowballs 12
More from around the web