Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Melting permafrost is damaging roads and buildings in Alaska and Russia and threatens to get much worse as the planet grows warmer. Up to 90 percent of the permafrost at the surface of the Northern Hemisphere could melt by the end of this century, leaving gaping holes in the ground and collapsed structures, roads and railways in northern regions. In what scientists predict to be a vicious cycle, the thaw will release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, further exacerbating global warming. The meltdown of northern soil is already underway. The top 10 feet (3 meters) or more of this perennially frozen soil could be decimated in the next few decades, altering ecosystems and causing damage across Canada, Alaska, and Russia, according to new computer simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! By 2050, the topmost layer of permafrost could be gone across more than half this region, with 90 percent of it melted by 2100. "Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," said study team member Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. Water runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s, Slater said. That could jump by up to 28 percent by the end of the century depending on the extent of greenhouse gas emissions which, according to a report today, are on the rise in the United States, which refuses to agree to an international plan to cut the output." Detailed study of this National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) team's results will appear in the Dec. 17 issue of the journal "Geophysical Research Letters." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10551468/
From www.livescience.com, but some text made bold by Billy T (for limited time readers): The new study, to be detailed in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite images of the Helheim glacier. Since the 1970s, the front of Helheim stayed in the same place. Then it began retreating rapidly, moving back 4.5 miles from 2001 through this past summer. It has also grown thinner, from top to bottom, by more than 130 feet since 2001. And over these past four years, its trek to the sea has sped up from about 70 feet per day to nearly 110. Glacier Facts: About 10 percent of Earth's land is covered with glaciers. During the last Ice Age, glaciers covered 32 percent of land. Glaciers store about 75 percent of the world's fresh water. Antarctic ice is more than 2.6 miles (4,200 meters) thick in some areas. If all land ice melted, sea level would rise approximately 230 feet (70 meters) worldwide. As the glacier's front retreats, its like a dam has been removed, and the inland portion can move more swiftly. The process has been seen in Antarctica by other researchers. A similar runaway effect has struck Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier. If the Helheim glacier thins beyond a critical point, it would simply float and rapidly disintegrate. In fact, the changes seen since 2001 were probably underway long before then but just not noticed. "Glaciers may have been thinning for over a decade," Howat said. "But it's only in the last few years that thinning reached a critical point and began drastically changing the glacier's dynamics." The melting is driven by a warmer climate. In the last decade, temperatures in Greenland have risen more than five degrees Fahrenheit (three degrees Celsius). Helheim's speedup has been noted 12.5 miles up the glacier. The center of the Greenland ice sheet is 150 miles inland. The ultimate outcome depends on how far inland the speed-up occurs. "Current models treat the ice sheet like it's just an ice cube sitting up there melting, and we're finding it's not that simple," Howat said. Since most of Greenland's ice is on land, seas will rise as the ice melts. Predicting the extent of the rise is tricky, however. If Greenland's entire ice sheet melted, oceans would be 15-20 feet higher.
Wow! Sounds like we aught be pretty worried. Let's say Greenland's 150 mile ice sheet melts 10 miles per year. That means that in 15 years: no more Greenland ice sheet. Oceans are then 15-20 feet higher. I wonder how this translates into worldwide flooding and loss of continental land mass? In the U.S., this would cover almost all of Southern Florida, the Chesapeake Bay Region, the coasts of Virginia, North and South Carolina, and large parts of New York City - probably a lot more.
The 10miles per year is only for the glacier and then only for the most active ones and then only near the fronts. I don't know but think most of Greenland's ice cover will leave "vertically" - I.e. evaporation in summer exceeding snow in winter. - but I am just guessing with a solid base of ignorance as is commonly used by many posters. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
10 miles per year is totally unrealistic. It was just a hypothetical responce to the post above - "if"
Greenland melting at 10 km a year? How nice! Valich must be in nirvana. However, the real world says otherwise. According to this study: RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html has used satellite data for the first time to reveal the changes at the top of the world. However, rather than just reporting the changes, the authors have built a small amount of information into a large scare. They imply that this warming is unprecedented in history, and that it supports the theory that the "greenhouse effect" is dangerously warming the planet. First, let's look at the data. Here is the graphic from the site showing warming as revealed by 20 years of satellite temperature records, from 1981 to 2001: <img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-12/arctic.jpg width=500> This looks bad, very bad. Almost all of the area has warmed, except Greenland and the north of Russia. Surely this shows global warming run amok. However, things come back into perspective when we look at the scale. The darkest blue only represents -0.4°C cooling, and the darkest red only represents +0.4°C warming. There is no red at all in the graphic; the darkest brown shown reveals the maximum warming is about +0.2°C. Most of the area only shows about +0.1°C warming. Nowhere has the Arctic warmed by even a quarter of a degree. Since the average Arctic temperature includes the blue (cooling) areas, the average temperature rise for the entire Arctic area shown must be less than +0.1°C in 20 years, or less than half a degree per century. This is much less than the accepted estimate of the historical warming of the earth for the last several hundred years, which has been about 1° C per century. But the map that Greenland actually has cooled almost 90% of its surface, so it look pretty unlikely that cooling would produce a 10 km retreat in glaciers. But, who knows? Perhaps the Undefeatable Warming Hypothesis has an explanation for “why cooling produces melting. And why warming cause cold spells in the Northern Hemisphere in winter and cold spell in the Southern Hemisphere in summer.” I am sure modelers will come up with a model for that weird situation. By the way, December broke in Argentina several records of cold weather for the month, and by Christmas we are 2º C below the average temperature for the whole month. By noon, December 24th, we had in Córdoba exactly 20º C, just 13º C below the normal average for the date. Warming? The warmest month, the warmest year? Not down here fellers…! This is the real world. Warming is found only in modeler's virtual world.
Apparently satellites measuring the GW temperature were poorly calibrated... this was stated in a report not long ago.
No. Satelites were and still are well calibrated. They tried to show that satelite readings were flawed by what they call "drifting" down by a decay in the satelite's altitude. They couldn't make their point though. It is a double edged sword, though, because if satelites were badly calibrated many aspects of the ozone hole scam would disappear. The fact is that satelite readings of Greenland temperatures just confirm what land based thermometers have been telling. Greenland is cooling severly in the inland (98%) and warming slightly at the coast (2%).
Edufer -I can resist a stupid comment : I think what you are saying is that: "global warming" is just a lot of hot air. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
>> Greenland is cooling severly in the inland (98%) and warming slightly at the coast (2%). This is expected from "oiled water" in the Northern Hemisphere... however this situation will not persist....... eventually (soon) the range in temp will widen significantly I often see up to to 22 C already is many populated centres of the world.
Didn't I address this sort of responce in my above post? "Warming is found only in modeler's virtual world"??? So you're just ignoring all the cited scientific studies we have posted on this forum? Are you now in hibernation under the remaining Earth's ice caps? Please reread ALL the facts that have been posted above, else this forum is locked.
You cannot lock any forum, and although you have shown some "fascistoid" inclinations in this discussion, this forum is still part of a free world and free speach and free thinking are an essential part of sciforums. If you don't like the rules, then blast off! It seems that you haven't read any of the scientific papers and evidence that some "skeptics" have been posting here. In that sense, it seems that the only thing that's locked here is your understanding of science.
Yes Billy T, what would our lives be if we didn't make stupid comments once in a while? Or give stupid answers (as when the priest said "Do you accept this lovely bride here,...etc" and you said: "yes"). But following the stupid trend this thread is taking lately, yes, warming is related to the atmosphere and as atmosphere is called "air", and if its warming, then it is "hot air." You are right. However, more sooner than later, it is going to be "cold air". Buy yourself a home in the Equatorial line - Miami will be like Montreal today. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m: Have a puff and peace on Earth.
This thread is getting out of control and ridiculous - locked! Fact: We are in a global warming period since the last glacier period ended 10,000 years ago. Fact: The consensus amongst scientists is that we are accelerationg that warming period by up to 100%. So it's 50-50: 50% natural Global Warming, 50% man-made. We are in a global warming period, factually substantiated by temperature rises, sea levels rising, and a large majority of glaciers and ice caps now melting. This is an undeniable fact. Read all the factual scientific sources substantiating all this evidence above. Where have you been throughout all the posts on this forum? Drifting along in dreamland somewhere? Locked.
>> warming is related to the atmosphere No, the big problem is that this is not important It is the waters of the world that really hold the heat.... a massive heat sink and it is this heat collected that will cause the greatest problems.
Fact: Temperatures have been going up and down since the last glacier period ended 10,000 years ago. FACT: There is no consensus at all among scientists. There is some kind of consensus among proponents of global warming (many are against frauds commited by the IPCC as the Hockey Stick, as Von Storch, for example). There an eaqual or perhaps a larger number of scientists that believe the global warming hypothesis is flawed and is more fraud than science. That’s a fact. There are sea levels rising in some parts of the world, there are sea levels going down in many parts of the world as I’ve shown here repeatedly (Maldives, Tuvalu, Baltic, Denmark, Sweden, etc) mainly because the ice cover in Antarctica and Greenland are taking water from the oceans. Sall glaciers that are retreating are sending water to the atmosphere as evaporation and not as water to the oceans through rivers. So your “undeniable facts” show that you are ignoring most everything about climatology –your knowledge on the matter is based on press releases and mythology. Please, go back to scientific sources and give a break to all those apocalyptic press releases and hoaxes from the IPCC. This “LOCKED” means your are giving up? Fraud!
>> a larger number of scientists that believe the global warming hypothesis is flawed indeed a confused picture. IMO, this implies that incorrect modeling is being used....... face it, the Earth's surface is expanding, so sea level is not an indicator of ice melt at this stage.... cloud cover is not an indication of gross change in the northern hemisphere at this stage. see the droughts, the extreme weather, the vague atmospheric "warming", cooling.... increased temperature ranges..... sea temperature rising.... no modern model fits this picture...except oiled water... Yes the 'evidence' presented is useful, but useless unless the correct model is employed to interpret the data. It is too late to stop the climatic effects of oiled water... the sea will just slowly heat up.......mega mass of excess heat... until... evaporation takes to the sky..... the massive cloud banks... the ice age. All the climate scientists have their heads in the sky, when they should be looking to sea. Blind as bats IMO
You are right in many things you’ve said, but there are some points that need further discussion. The great mistake is relying on climate models for having an idea of how climate or the atmosphere behaves. There are so many millions of constants and variables inside a fairly modest model, that the lack of some hundreds of thousands of variables that climatologists still ignore, make modeling a very poor tool for predicting future climate, even for a week in advance. (Not to mention basing important political decisions on a widespread ignorance) Of course, you can build a simple model that will predict summers and winters; the changing seasons, etc, but will never get to predict if next year will be warmer or cooler than this present one, or if it will rain more or if there will be less snow in the mountains. Once scientist accept this fact, then climatology can go on more solid grounds researching for all those uncertainties (ignorance) that we still have. The oily theory needs to explain one little detail: you say that <i>“the oceans will slowly heat up … mega mass of excess heat... until... evaporation takes to the sky..... the massive cloud banks... the ice age. “</i> If the thin oil film covers the oceans, acting as a blanket preventing oceans to cool, then it is preventing evaporation, so there is no “<i>evaporation taking to the sky,</i>” and therefore no <i>“massive cloud banks,”</i>. Cloud formation is mostly driven by cosmic rays, so it depends on solar wind, and solar wind depends on the number of sunspots, and sunspots depend on the magnetic activity of the sun… All things that are totally out of control of this arrogant human species that believes they can make any influence on the climate. Ocean’s thermal inertia is so disproportionally enormous, that a 2º C warming of the first inch of the surface is insignificant warming for the ocean. It could change the ocean’s temperature by as little as 0.0000001º C or less --or a little more. Compare 2 inches (5 cm) to the average depth of oceans of 5000 m meters, (or 500,000 cm; a porportion of 1/100,000). Trying to know how climate is driven, many scientists are looking at the sky (the CO2 in the atmosphere and other GHGs), many others are looking at the sun’s surface and measuring its magnetic field, others are looking at the solar system and its baricenter (center of balance of planetary and solar mass), and they come with different hypothesis and theories. They toss the information over the discussion table and try to assemble the puzzle. Some pieces seem to fit, other don’t and are discarded (or put aside until there appears a new piece that would make a good fit). Up to now, we don’t know if the scene depicted by the puzzle is a Sioux chief or a sailboat in the Caribbean. The puzzle borders show some sky and clouds, perhaps a bird, a butterfly, but the center of the image remains black. And it will for a very long time.
