Greenland Ice Sheet's "Extreme Melt Event" Shatters Temperature Records

[RandomGuy]

he Greenland ice sheet covers most of the country: about 656,000 square miles in total. But it's quickly disappearing. In fact, the ice sheet is melting so quickly that, at first, the scientists who measure it assumed their recent data was wrong.

Seasonal melt is normal in Greenland: Parts of the ice sheet melt each spring and then freeze again when the weather gets cold. But lately the melt has been starting earlier and reaching higher levels than normal, Slate reported. This year, when climate scientists at the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) began to measure the seasonal melt, the data was unlike anything they had ever seen before.

"We had to check that our models were still working properly," climate scientist Peter Langen told Polar Portal. But they were.

"Almost 12% of the Greenland ice sheet had more than 1 mm of melt on Monday," Polar Portal reported, "smashing" the past records for ice melt. Slate reports that Greenland has seen a similar melt in the past — but that was in July.

Temperatures were also much higher than normal for April. "Thermometers on and around the ice showed temperatures as high as 64 degrees Fahrenheit on Monday — more than 35 degrees warmer than normal for this time of year," Slate reported.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/13/Wthr_Anom_SM_EN_20160412.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png

So what does this mean for Greenland? There's a possibility that the weather will cool again in the coming weeks and some of the melt will refreeze, but climate scientists will be keeping a close eye on what Polar Portal calls an "unseasonal and rather extreme melt event."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/greenland-ice-sheets-extreme-melt-144000985.html?nhp=1
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/13/greenland_is_melting_much_faster_than_scientists_e xpected.html

[baseline bum]

Why do you trust scientists over Republicans, RandomGuy?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you trust scientists over Republicans, RandomGuy?

lPgZfhnCAdI

Crazy me. Hell I trust comedians more than I trust elected Republicans...

[Blake]

Why do you trust scientists over Republicans, RandomGuy?

I trust God over scientists

474965485998833664

[DarrinS]

3 replies?

I guess it's hard to get people alarmed by the climate apocalypse headline du jour.

[tlongII]

Why is the Antarctic ice sheet growing?

[boutons_deux]

Why is the Antarctic ice sheet growing?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

[boutons_deux]

as if actual DATA made any impact on you cretins

Hottest March on Record as Earth Keeps Hurtling Past Temperature Milestones

Adding (http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-march-breaks-february-record-jma-7064/) "yet another month (http://www.bitsofscience.org/record-hot-winter-february-1-5-degrees-climate-target-6873/) to a new mountain chain of extreme global temperature peaks," March 2016 was the warmest since at least 1891, according to (http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/mar_wld.html) the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA).

Not only that, but, as February did, March broke the previous record by the greatest margin yet seen for any month. Compared to the 20th-century average, March was 1.07°C hotter across the globe, according to the JMA figures, while February was 1.04°C higher.

If April also sets a monthly record—and there's no reason to think it won't (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/17/portending-very-hot-2016-january-eviscerates-global-temperature-record)—"the Earth will have had an astonishing 12 month string of record-shattering months," writes (http://mashable.com/2016/04/14/earth-11-warmest-months/#ogHt0kWQygqq) Andrew Freedman for Mashable.

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/mar_wld.png

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/15/hottest-march-record-earth-keeps-hurtling-past-temperature-milestones

[baseline bum]

Man I don't understand global warming denial. You buy into that and you're basically saying you trust American Republicans more than scientists, peer review, and the scientific method.

[TDMVPDPOY]

why not cut the sheets and export it to countries that need water or drought stricken farming areas?

[Wild Cobra]

Why is the Antarctic ice sheet growing?

This scare is generated by the ice melting earlier in the year than normal. I've debated it for a couple days now.

Random, like normal, is a day late and a dollar short...

The likely cause if the extra geothermal activity building up under Greenland.

However, the AGW alarmists, and faithful followers of the dogma, will blame AGW...

From Nature Geoscience: Heat flux variations beneath central Greenland’s ice due to anomalously thin lithosphere (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n9/full/ngeo1898.html)



We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland increases from west to east due to thinning of the lithosphere, which is only about 25–66% as thick as is typical for terrains of early Proterozoic age5. Complex interactions between geothermal heat flow and glaciation-induced thermal perturbations in the upper crust over glacial cycles lead to strong regional variations in basal ice conditions, with areas of rapid basal melting adjoining areas of extremely cold basal ice.

---

A strong thinning of the thermal lithosphere, from 103 km in the west to 60 km in the southeast of the summit region, has immediate implications for the regional thermal state of the uppermost lithosphere and the modelled GHF. At a depth of 2 km, where influence of past climate variations is less, GHF increases by 17 mW m−2 from west to east. At the ice sheet base, glacial cycle variation (Supplementary Fig. S3), has amplified this west-to-east lateral gradient to more than 30 mW m−2 (Fig. 4a).

---

This strong coupling between the thermal bedrock and dynamic ice cover, driven by their joint thermal evolution and associated feedback effects (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. S3), explains, for example, the implied presence of basal ice melting in the southwestern corner of the summit area normally characterized by low deep GHF.


I'm curious Random...

Which liberal propaganda site told to to say this?

Those times back, do you think it was called "Greenland" because it was so white with ice?

Geothermal temperature fluxes are cyclical, like almost everything else in nature.

[Blake]

Those times back, do you think it was called "Greenland" because it was so white with ice?


Apparently WC is unaware of plate tectonics

[Wild Cobra]

Apparently WC is unaware of plate tectonics

Sure I am. What does that have to do with the recent 500 or so years?

[Wild Cobra]

Check this out:

http://www.greenland.com/en/articles/hot-springs-in-greenland/


Watch the icebergs float by, colours in the sky change, and soak in that time passes. Take in a deep breath, and you may be surprised that the air around the naturally heated water is pure and fresh instead of smelling of sulphur.

http://www.greenland.com/media/5988/hot-spring_lars-t-christiansen.jpg

[Blake]

Sure I am. What does that have to do with the recent 500 or so years?

Where did you pull "500" from?

But ok, why did they call it Greenland 500 years ago?

[boutons_deux]

"green" was marketing fraud

"Greenland, the icy island nation in the Arctic, gets its name from an Icelandic murderer exiled there, who called it "Greenland" in hopes that the name would attract settlers.

But it turns out that long ago, Greenland was actually quite green.

A new study of the world's largest island reveals that ancient dirt in Greenland was cryogenically frozen for millions of years underneath about 2 miles of ice.

"More than 2.5 million years ago Greenland looked like the green Alaskan tundra, before it was covered by the second largest body of ice on Earth," the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said in a statement (https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2014/Apr/NR-14-04-05.html#.U1BNpfldXv4) Thursday."

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6653/20140418/icy-greenland-was-once-pretty-green-study-finds.htm

[ElNono]

Man I don't understand global warming denial. You buy into that and you're basically saying you trust American Republicans more than scientists, peer review, and the scientific method.

Have you ever played the "Destroy all Humans!" videogame on the PS2? If you have not, you should, and you'll get answers to these kinda questions :lol

[SpursforSix]

Have you ever played the "Destroy all Humans!" videogame on the PS2? If you have not, you should, and you'll get answers to these kinda questions :lol

Video games are just a distraction by BigTech to take your money and keep you from noticing what BigAg is doing to your food.

[pgardn]

Apparently WC is unaware of plate tectonics

Actually he is totally unaware of the historical reason it was called Greenland, which it was not. Green that is.

Oops. Boots looked it up.

[pgardn]

IMO, you are reading what you choose, and not looking for the truth, if you deny our planet is getting significantly warmer. And of course there have been warmer periods and colder periods that have nothing to do with people. Quit with this tired old deflection argument that has nothing today with the current, realatively short term (based on the long history of the Earth) warming. We look for reasons and by far the most salient reason is atmospheric (and yes water being a heat sink is measured as there is a huge interaction between air and water). And yes indeed the "recent" data correlates very well with certain gases and activities tied to human civilization's Widespread ability to use combustion.

The forecast mdels are much more difficult to make. Predictions of which regions will get more precipitation or less, difficult. The timing of sea level change, difficult (looks accelerated right now). We thought there might be more hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico, no. On and on... Also difficult to predict is our ability to undo what we have done. There is quite a bit of debate on this. We have constantly screwed unintentionally with more isolated ecosystems and then tried to reverse the damage with even worse failure. There have also been success stories where the prescription involves just stop what you are doing. But the price of stopping also has its effects.

We should notice posters like WC try to mix this all together to confuse. It's a nice tactic. It got OJ off, sorta...

[Blake]

Actually he is totally unaware of the historical reason it was called Greenland, which it was not. Green that is.

Oops. Boots looked it up.

Yeah and when it was actually green, it was because it wasn't sitting where it is today

[Wild Cobra]

Actually he is totally unaware of the historical reason it was called Greenland, which it was not. Green that is.

Oops. Boots looked it up.

There are indications it was green, at least the shores for some miles inland. So many things indicating settlement and even mines have been found as the ice retreats.


Greenland, the icy island nation in the Arctic, gets its name from an Icelandic murderer exiled there, who called it "Greenland" in hopes that the name would attract settlers. But it turns out that long ago, Greenland was actually quite green.

"That long ago," as in when he was exiled.

The article goes on to say all of Greenland was green even farther in the past. It isn't saying it was only green those 2.5 million years ago.

Where did that silly story originate from anyway?

If he was exiled there, then who did he have to say his name for it?

Do you guys even think if what some idiot journalist says is true or not?

[pgardn]

Yeah and when it was actually green, it was because it wasn't sitting where it is today

And there was no one present to call it Green. More than 2.5 million years ago, good luck finding anything close to a modern human on Greenland or anywhere else. Now I have Opened the door for Avante to present his argument of "we don't know it was green if no one saw it. Science has been wrong."

[pgardn]

There are indications it was green, at least the shores for some miles inland. So many things indicating settlement and even mines have been found as the ice retreats.



?

Of course it had some vegetation. And sure people are going to make a living in pockets. But what does the evidence concerning the entire land mass say? Here you go again. There were people sailing back and forth in that region for quite a while the evidence now shows. What does that have to do with 2.5 million years ago and beyond?

Do you get the relative time differences?

[Wild Cobra]

IMO, you are reading what you choose, and not looking for the truth, if you deny our planet is getting significantly warmer. And of course there have been warmer periods and colder periods that have nothing to do with people.

Yes, the planet is warming, and yes, mankind contributes to that warming.

You claim I read what I want, but I submit to you it is yourself and others who do that.

I read and understand these sciences very, very well. I see how selective studies and papers are at ignoring relevant variables because they are inconvenient. The entire politics built around global warming should be what is alarming. they over hype CO2, because it is something that can be taxed for wealth redistribution, and also used to make regulations to control the populous. Politicians love such power.

CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, but models have severely failed on the claimed warming it should bring.

Soot is seldom spoken of, and is the greatest variable caused by human activity.

Land use is also seldom spoke of, but has a dramatic effect, especially in the areas where most cimate stations are situated. much of what they see in change is the change in land use, and can not be used to estimate global temperature changes.



Quit with this tired old deflection argument that has nothing today with the current, realatively short term (based on the long history of the Earth) warming. We look for reasons and by far the most salient reason is atmospheric (and yes water being a heat sink is measured as there is a huge interaction between air and water). And yes indeed the "recent" data correlates very well with certain gases and activities tied to human civilization's ability widespread to use combustion.

It is the alarmists side that deflects and refuses to speak of these other variables in any detail. Solar is a rather large natural variable, but downplayed to a laughable degree to anyone who understands such dynamics. That's another lengthy subject by itself, but I will say that shortwave is nearly 100% absorbed as heat in our oceans and takes several decades to equalize with the atmosphere, whereas longwave is only absorbed in the top few microns of water, so it is readily released fast, causing almost no warming to the water.

As for correlating any two near linear trends... Any idea how laughable that is to claim causation?

[pgardn]

Yes, the planet is warming, and yes, mankind contributes to that warming.

You claim I read what I want, but I submit to you it is yourself and others who do that.

I read and understand these sciences very, very well. I see how selective studies and papers are at ignoring relevant variables because they are inconvenient. The entire politics built around global warming should be what is alarming. they over hype CO2, because it is something that can be taxed for wealth redistribution, and also used to make regulations to control the populous. Politicians love such power.

CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, but models have severely failed on the claimed warming it should bring.

Soot is seldom spoken of, and is the greatest variable caused by human activity.

Land use is also seldom spoke of, but has a dramatic effect, especially in the areas where most cimate stations are situated. much of what they see in change is the change in land use, and can not be used to estimate global temperature changes.


It is the alarmists side that deflects and refuses to speak of these other variables in any detail. Solar is a rather large natural variable, but downplayed to a laughable degree to anyone who understands such dynamics. That's another lengthy subject by itself, but I will say that shortwave is nearly 100% absorbed as heat in our oceans and takes several decades to equalize with the atmosphere, whereas longwave is only absorbed in the top few microns of water, so it is readily released fast, causing almost no warming to the water.

As for correlating any two near linear trends... Any idea how laughable that is to claim causation?

Actually here is the chronological phases of denial:

1. There is no warmning, it may even be getting colder.
2. There might be warming, but the role of humans is insignificant
3. There is warming. The role of humans insignificant.
4. There is warming. The role of humans might be significant.
5. There is warming. The role of humans might be significant. But weigh this against economic factors.
6. Think about the economy. There are other contributing factors.


This is really embarrassing I would think.

And many conservatives are still stuck on phase 1.

Aside: There are others that would do a better job on expanding the chronology of denial. Please do. Oh, throw in the "bunch of tree hungers" with gusto.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually here is the chronological phases of denial:

1. There is no warmning, it may even be getting colder.
2. There might be warming, but the role of humans is insignificant
3. There is warming. The role of humans insignificant.
4. There is warming. The role of humans might be significant.
5. There is warming. The role of humans might be significant. But weigh this against economic factors.
6. Think about the economy. There are other contributing factors.


This is really embarrassing I would think.

And many conservatives are still stuck on phase 1.

Aside: There are others that would do a better job on expanding the chronology of denial. Please do. Oh, throw in the "bunch of tree hungers" with gusto.
It should be embarrassing for you to think there is a one-size-fits-all, and also to deny that maybe my position is the correct one.

[Wild Cobra]

There is a recent Nature Geoscience (4/4/16) that I just saw looking for something else. Today is actually the first time I went to the home page for a while. The last article I found using keyword searches. Being Sunday, I have a little more time.

Link: Melting at the base of the Greenland ice sheet explained by Iceland hotspot history (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2689.html)

[pgardn]

It should be embarrassing for you to think there is a one-size-fits-all, and also to deny that maybe my position is the correct one.

I got 6 categories Mister.

Add to them if you wish.

[Wild Cobra]

I got 6 categories Mister.

Add to them if you wish.
Why don't you just stop denying that some of us might actually know a thing or two on the topic.

[CosmicCowboy]

one MILLIMETER???? Holy Fuck! Isn't that a sign of the rapture?

[SpursforSix]

one MILLIMETER???? Holy Fuck! Isn't that a sign of the rapture?

short sighted. In a million years, that adds up to like a million millimeters.

[CosmicCowboy]

short sighted. In a million years, that adds up to like a million millimeters.

oversimplification.

one warm day is not an indicator for a million warm days

[spurraider21]

short sighted. In a million years, that adds up to like a million millimeters.
:lol

[Wild Cobra]

short sighted. In a million years, that adds up to like a million millimeters.

So a kilometer.

Gotcha...

Shill, think that trend will continue?

[SpursforSix]

So a kilometer.

Gotcha...

Shill, think that trend will continue?

Who's to say.

[Wild Cobra]

Who's to say.

By that time, the natural course of cycles will have us through a few more ice ages.

I seriously doubt the trend will hold.

[SpursforSix]

By that time, the natural course of cycles will have us through a few more ice ages.

I seriously doubt the trend will hold.

Maybe...maybe not. It's a ways off. I'm not going to worry about it.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe...maybe not. It's a ways off. I'm not going to worry about it.

Exactly.

So why mention it?

[SpursforSix]

Exactly.

So why mention it?

I didn't. I just projected the math out. Someone else brought up the millimeter movement.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't. I just projected the math out. Someone else brought up the millimeter movement.

well, it was also 1 mm/day, so it would be 365 km...

[SpursforSix]

well, it was also 1 mm/day, so it would be 365 km...

so that's like 365,000,000 millimeters in one million years. I'll have to run some scenarios.