Melting glaciers

Mk

Are the world's glaciers melting? I expect some are melting, some are growing, and all are moving, but all together, what is going on?

Christina-

I'm pretty sure they're melting because of global warming. Actually, I heard somewhere that in many, many years down the road the melting of these glaciers will cause much of land to flood up quite a bit. Do you think that's something worth worrying about? I probably won't be alive by then, but I think out future will be punished for our stupid mistakes.

Bystander

A glacier can advance, retreat, or stand still. It can accumulate, dissipate, or remain static. Flow rate is a function of thickness --- surprise, surprise, surprise. Basal, or interfacial melting, is a 24/7, year-round process once the glacier has been in place long enough to reach "steady state" with respect to crustal heat flow (nearly never for Alpine glaciers --- x thousands of years for Greenland, Antarctica).

The Greenland Ice Sheet is moving faster --- with respect to what set of baseline measurements. What's that mean? The Greenland Ice Sheet is thinning --- with respect to what set of baseline measurements? What's that mean?

Mk

You know what, I hear this ALL THE TIME, what is it? What's with this? Why is this phrase so preeminent?

Thanks for your post Bystander, what are the baseline measurements? Where do they come from? Are they trustable?

Andre

I just lost a long post, PF claiming that I was not logged in after posting and when hitting go-back, everything was gone? How can that be.

Anyway, I'm not going to repeat all this. So I just give the links.

This is the scaremongering:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...711843,00.html

but these are the verifiable facts:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021706G

Mk

Awesome link Andre, and I am dearly sorry for your loss. It happens to all of us too much. Very intriguing! What about in the arctic, Antarctic peninsula, and other regions of Antarctica? From everything I've seen it seems the north polar ice cap is melting. On 60 minutes last last night (totally not one-sided) I saw the same model again, of NASA's modeled image of the north polar ice cap in 1979, and one of the north polar ice cap in 2005. We can see the ice went somewhere. What does this have to do with AMO, and thermohaline circulation?

CharlesP

I suspect, a real climate expert or better yet a team needs to follow Andre around and undo the damage he has done to science. But I don't have a ten million dollar budget for that. Certain industry and ideologically motivated folk will never see the light of the evidence no matter what happens.
However the Hocky Stick is firmer now than ever. Each year sees new reports extending the length of time over which there has been no climate change approaching the magnitude of the present crisis. Similarly new reports of warming issue, from the recent Greenland and Antarctic shockers to the steady march of warm weather plants North and the loss of permafrost.
The scientific community in big name magazines like Physics Today and Scientific American won't even hear of any dissent on these issues.
Rather they give credence to claims of ancient man-made warming probably a thousand times weaker than the present releases.

Even big industry is turning from British Petroleum to - did I hear right? Exxon.
I think if you would only go visit your local university you would get an education on the science war in America and how politicians try to destroy science.

Mk

Did you read this? http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021706G

Are they happening? Or is the media blowing them up? Did you read.... http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50969 ?

CharlesP

TCS daily looks like an industry toy - not a refereed journal,
And the Science Forums is a joke.

If you can't show me something from a refereed journal and then the proof that even THAT has been agreed upon then forget it. There are too many lie factories out there like the Discovery Institute, Cato,
Heritage. That business about more snow falling on Greenland looks like a red herring.

Andre

You give an excellent example of the most abused ad hominem by the scaremongers: "Funded by the industry so he is wrong". And indeed the most effective shield to ever let the truth prevail "lalala I can't hear you, you're a crook you're lying". Let's assume that Pat Michels is wrong indeed, then your heroes, who say the same here are wrong too! So who is right and by what funding?

CharlesP

I am not going to waste time playing cat and mouse with every dumb piece of nonsense you bring up. The fact is that the icecaps are both melting bigtime. The permafrost is melting. Glaciers are melting almost everywhere. There is every indication that the earth's serface is warming as a whole. I'll change my mind when the IPCC gives up and the famous journals all publish reports explaining why they were all wrong. Not likely to happen.

Andre

Thank you for your excellent demonstration how global warming works; limited to the few commonplaces, glaciers, permafrost, you forgot sea level by the way and Katrina and a few more. And of course a lot of fallacies. But what does it signify, all those events? Sound like me something like I'm-right-because-I-have-a-bike. I mean, where is the causality. What does it mean that some glaciers melt?

Now science is considered falsifiable, that is if some objective evidence shows up against a theory, that theory should be considered falsified and requires revision or rejection. But whatever happens, global warming is true unless the propaganda stops and reverses. too bad but then it isn't science, is it?

Mk

I don't listen to people as much when they say that I'm flat-out wrong, tell me what to think, and leave out totally the why I'm wrong and you're right part—because they didn't hear what I said. Kind of like how I bet you didn't click on either one of the links.
I'm not sure even that would make you think twice.