http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/7/24/1343166053638/Greenland-ice-sheet-compo-008.jpg

The Greenland ice sheet on July 8, left, and four days later on the right. An estimated 97% of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. Photograph: Nasa


Quote:

The Greenland ice sheet melted at a faster rate this month than at any other time in recorded history, with virtually the entire ice sheet showing signs of thaw. The rapid melting over just four days was captured by three satellites. It has stunned and alarmed scientists, and deepened fears about the pace and future consequences of climate change. In a statement posted on Nasa's website on Tuesday, scientists admitted the satellite data was so striking they thought at first there had to be a mistake. "This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?" Son Nghiem of Nasa's jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena said in the release. He consulted with several colleagues, who confirmed his findings. Dorothy Hall, who studies the surface temperature of Greenland at Nasa's space flight centre in Greenbelt, Maryland, confirmed that the area experienced unusually high temperatures in mid-July, and that there was widespread melting over the surface of the ice sheet. Climatologists Thomas Mote, at the University of Georgia, and Marco Tedesco, of the City University of New York, also confirmed the melt recorded by the satellites. However, scientists were still coming to grips with the shocking images on Tuesday. "I think it's fair to say that this is unprecedented," Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center, told the Guardian. The set of images released by Nasa on Tuesday show a rapid thaw between 8 July and 12 July. Within that four-day period, measurements from three satellites showed a swift expansion of the area of melting ice, from about 40% of the ice sheet surface to 97%. Zwally, who has made almost yearly trips to the Greenland ice sheet for more than three decades, said he had never seen such a rapid melt. About half of Greenland's surface ice sheet melts during a typical summer, but Zwally said he and other scientists had been recording an acceleration of that melting process over the last few decades. This year his team had to rebuild their camp, at Swiss Station, when the snow and ice supports melted. He said he was most surprised to see indications in the images of melting even around the area of Summit Station, which is about two miles above sea level. It was the second unusual event in Greenland in a matter of days, after an iceberg the size of Manhattan broke off from the Petermann Glacier. But the rapid melt was viewed as more serious. "If you look at the 8 July image that might be the maximum extent of warming you would see in the summer," Zwally noted. "There have been periods when melting might have occurred at higher elevations briefly – maybe for a day or so – but to have it cover the whole of Greenland like this is unknown, certainly in the time of satellite records." Lora Koenig, another Goddard glaciologist, told Nasa similar rapid melting occurs about every 150 years. But she warned there were wide-ranging potential implications from this year's thaw. "If we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome." she told Nasa. The most immediate consequences are sea level rise and a further warming of the Arctic. In the centre of Greenland, the ice remains up to 3,000 metres deep. On the edges, however, the ice is much, much thinner and has been melting into the sea. The melting ice sheet is a significant factor in sea level rise. Scientists attribute about one-fifth of the annual sea level rise, which is about 3mm every year, to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. In this instance of this month's extreme melting, Mote said there was evidence of a heat dome over Greenland: or an unusually strong ridge of warm air. The dome is believed to have moved over Greenland on 8 July, lingering until 16 July. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa

Well we just might see if the melting of the sheet distrupts the great ocean current much sooner than we thought.

This is a 150 year event that is on time.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 25^th, 2012 at 9:24pm:

This is a 150 year event that is on time.

So we wait another year and we'll know I suppose.

Progs, what happens every 150 years to make this an event we should expect every 150 years?

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

Progs, what happens every 150 years to make this an event we should expect every 150 years?

An SUV drives through the middle of greenland.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:35am:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 11:23am: Progs, what happens every 150 years to make this an event we should expect every 150 years? An SUV drives through the middle of greenland.

Exactly, progs, so how can this melt be right on time. It is a rare weather event that our climate shift has made more likely. What are you going to say if we get another one in the next few years.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 11:35am: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 11:23am: Progs, what happens every 150 years to make this an event we should expect every 150 years? An SUV drives through the middle of greenland. Exactly, progs, so how can this melt be right on time. It is a rare weather event that our climate shift has made more likely. What are you going to say if we get another one in the next few years.

I am almost expecting it. We have to compare apple with apples and as we have not had sattelites in the past, this melt would need to be compared to past melts via traditional method.

For the benefit of the self proclaimed Einsteins of this world, a strong melting event occurs about once in every 150 years. That means that it's a statistical thing, not a cyclic thing. So for example, you might toss a 6 on a dice about every 6 throws. It doesn't mean that every sixth throw will be a 6, or that there are 4-6 throws between every 6. 6's don't generally appear "right on time".

However, this current event is unprecedented and if we see similar events in years to come, it will confirm that the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap is progressing faster than usual.

I'm not sure what tradtitional methods you had in mind. Do you mean like the traditional rain dance of the Cherokee Indians, or the "Red Sky in the morning" method?

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

For the benefit of the self proclaimed Einsteins of this world, a strong melting event occurs about once in every 150 years. That means that it's a statistical thing, not a cyclic thing. So for example, you might toss a 6 on a dice about every 6 throws. It doesn't mean that every sixth throw will be a 6, or that there are 4-6 throws between every 6. 6's don't generally appear "right on time". However, this current event is unprecedented and if we see similar events in years to come, it will confirm that the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap is progressing faster than usual. I'm not sure what tradtitional methods you had in mind. Do you mean like the traditional rain dance of the Cherokee Indians, or the "Red Sky in the morning" method?

So how is it unprecedented when the event itself has precedence. You are just a scaremonger. You are just like all the flannery's out there. A drought in australia is unherad of, unprecedented.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

muso wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 12:56pm: For the benefit of the self proclaimed Einsteins of this world, a strong melting event occurs about once in every 150 years. That means that it's a statistical thing, not a cyclic thing. So for example, you might toss a 6 on a dice about every 6 throws. It doesn't mean that every sixth throw will be a 6, or that there are 4-6 throws between every 6. 6's don't generally appear "right on time". However, this current event is unprecedented and if we see similar events in years to come, it will confirm that the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap is progressing faster than usual. I'm not sure what tradtitional methods you had in mind. Do you mean like the traditional rain dance of the Cherokee Indians, or the "Red Sky in the morning" method? So how is it unprecedented when the event itself has precedence. You are just a scaremonger. You are just like all the flannery's out there. A drought in australia is unherad of, unprecedented.

Well there are severe melts and there are severe melts, just as there are droughts and there are droughts. It's a bit like injuries. A paper cut is an injury and an amputation is an injury too, but apart from that there's no comparison. 

Quote:

So what makes this unprecedented, never happened before?

Reply from Muso:
The severity. 300 Gigatonnes of ice loss in a single year is unprecedented - and it's not just a single year. Every year since around 2003, the net loss has averaged about 100-150Gte/Annum and accelerating. That is unprecedented.

Sh1t!  - I hit the wrong button and edited your post instead of replying to it, but I made it clear what I meant. (sorry)

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

Quote: So what makes this unprecedented, never happened before? [quote] Reply from Muso: The severity. 300 Gigatonnes of ice loss in a single year is unprecedented - and it's not just a single year. Every year since around 2003, the net loss has averaged about 100-150Gte/Annum and accelerating. That is unprecedented.

[/quote]

Well then you would need to use the unpresedented for some other announcement.

How about you provide a link to a scientist using the word unprecedented in relation to this event. I bet you won't find one without a qualifier.

MOTR wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 10:34pm:

How about you provide a link to a scientist using the word unprecedented in relation to this event. I bet you won't find one without a qualifier.

The qualifier is that they are a joke.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 10:34pm: How about you provide a link to a scientist using the word unprecedented in relation to this event. I bet you won't find one without a qualifier. The qualifier is that they are a joke. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

Here is the qualifier.


Quote:

For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations.

Did you read the article?

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 29th, 2012 at 12:51pm: MOTR wrote on Jul 28th, 2012 at 10:34pm: How about you provide a link to a scientist using the word unprecedented in relation to this event. I bet you won't find one without a qualifier. The qualifier is that they are a joke. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html Here is the qualifier. Quote: For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Did you read the article?

So it is like a baby. Oh wow mummy, look at that. Well that is just grand. NASA the new baby with a toy. Wow NASA says, just dam WOW.

The point is that this is not being reported as an unprecedented event. It is unprecedented in the satellite record.

Wow 30 years of data, versus the ice cores, which is what has apparently told us has been happening every 150 years for a much longer period of time.

When did the last melt happen, Shane?

These rare weather events are happening all over the shop. About time you started to connect the dots.

Approximately 150 years ago?

Shane B wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Approximately 150 years ago?

It's a pretty rare event. An event that will become much more common as global temperatures increase.

Regarding the "right on time" aspect of this event. Sure, on AVERAGE it is a 150 year event and, sure, the last event was in the 1890's, but the one before it was over 800 years ago. This is an event that has occurred on twice since the Magna Carta was written and, unlike then, the region has undergone unprecedented warming and unprecedented long term ice loss. "Right on time" was an unfortunate faux pas on the part of GISS.

Shane B wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 5:16pm:

Wow 30 years of data, versus the ice cores, which is what has apparently told us has been happening every 150 years for a much longer period of time.

No it doesn't. It tells us that over 10,000 years the events average out to 150 years but this type of event has only happened twice in the last 1000 years.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 4:54pm:

NASA the new baby with a toy. Wow NASA says, just dam WOW.

It puzzles and amuses me to see deniers sneer at respected research institutions like NASA while uncritically believing everything they read in conspiracy theory denier blogs that they find on the internet.

This type of event obviously requires some rather unique weather features. Features that are more likely to occur with a warmer climate.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 29th, 2012 at 4:54pm: NASA the new baby with a toy. Wow NASA says, just dam WOW. It puzzles and amuses me to see deniers sneer at respected research institutions like NASA while uncritically believing everything they read in conspiracy theory denier blogs that they find on the internet.

It scares me.

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29th, 2012 at 6:02pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jul 29th, 2012 at 4:54pm: NASA the new baby with a toy. Wow NASA says, just dam WOW. It puzzles and amuses me to see deniers sneer at respected research institutions like NASA while uncritically believing everything they read in conspiracy theory denier blogs that they find on the internet. It scares me.

There's that too I guess.

It speaks to their ability to critically assess what is and isn't expert authority though, extremists like progressiveslol seems to do a good job of parodying the denial movement. I like to live in hope that the vast majority of people reading the sort of confused hysteria that seems to pass for an argument would recognise it for what it is.

Yes, I didn't see the point in refuting clumsy nonsensical statements . I think most people will make their own interpretations.  The joke comment about NASA was very ironical.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 29th, 2012 at 4:54pm: NASA the new baby with a toy. Wow NASA says, just dam WOW. It puzzles and amuses me to see deniers sneer at respected research institutions like NASA while uncritically believing everything they read in conspiracy theory denier blogs that they find on the internet.

....they don't even believe it: they are simply giving themselves as much time to adjust business models as possible to stay on top of the chessboard of life.

Shame will bring them to heel eventually, but not until the richest are sure that they can stay rich in the new paradigm of business.

The carbon price will make this day come closer.

WE ARE SIMPLY DEALING WITH THE CONCEPT OF BUSINESS, AND THEREFORE INVESTOR, CERTAINTY

IT'S ALL BUSINESS... BUSINESS IS BUSINESS, SIMPLE!!

  :D :D

Shane B wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 5:16pm:

Wow 30 years of data, versus the ice cores, which is what has apparently told us has been happening every 150 years for a much longer period of time.

JEEBUS, ALL OF A SUDDEN TRUST THE ICE CORES!

LOL, [color=#666666]HAVE I BEEN SMOKING CRACK LATELY OR SOMETHING????????????????????????  ::) ::)  :-?[/color]

MOTR wrote on Jul 29^th, 2012 at 5:17pm:

When did the last melt happen, Shane? These rare weather events are happening all over the shop. About time you started to connect the dots.

SHANE IS TOO BIG AND SCARY FOR THAT!
aNY MONEY SHANES DADDY WAS BIG AND SCARY BTW,... OH, AND SNEERING!!

  :D :D :D :D  8-)

GO EASY ON YOUR KIDS WON'T YOU SHANE!  ::) ::)(POOR BUGGERS!  :o :o )