NOAA - Arctic Report Card -warming temperatures and melting ice

[Quaestio]

:laughat:

When you go low, we go high.

You go copy & pasted posts from pseudoscience/conspiracy blogs. That's about as low as you can go.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]Røthe et al., 2018[/h][h=6]“Reconstructing Holocene Glacier and Climate Fluctuations From Lake Sediments in Vårfluesjøen, Northern Spitsbergen … Here, we present work from the northern coast of Spitsbergen in which we unravel the sediment sequence from a distal glacier-fed lake, Vårfluesjøen. … During the early Holocene, the glaciers in the Vårfluesjøen catchment were considerably smaller than today or had even melted completely. … D’Andrea et al. (2012) […] point to increased heat transport via the West Spitsbergen Current, and accompanying increased winter precipitation, rather than cold temperatures, to have caused LIA expansions on Svalbard.”[/h][h=6]“During the early and mid-Holocene period, other glacier reconstructions from the west coast of Svalbard suggests that many glaciers were small or completely melted during this time interval (Svendsen and Mangerud, 1997; Røthe et al., 2015; van der Bilt et al., 2015; de Wet et al., 2018). Mangerud and Svendsen (2018) postulated that August temperatures in Svalbard were 6°C warmer from 10000 to 9000 cal. yr. BP than they are today, based on the presence of Zirfaea crispate.”[/h]

---

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]Fjeldskaar et al., 2018[/h][h=6]“About 60% of Svalbard is covered by glaciers today, but many of these glaciers were much reduced in size or gone in the Early Holocene. High resolution modeling of the glacial isostatic rebound reveals that the largest glaciers in Nordaustlandet and eastern Spitsbergen survived the Early Holocene warming, while the smaller, more peripheral glaciers, especially in the northwest, started to form about 5,500 years ago, and reached 3/4 of their current size about 600 years ago. Relative sea level has been rising during the last few millennia in the north and western parts of Spitsbergen, while land still emerges in the remaining part of Svalbard. Here we show that this sea level rise in the northwest is caused by the regrowth of glaciers in the Mid- to Late Holocene that slowed down, and even reversed, the post-glacial isostatic uplift and caused the crust to subside over large areas of Spitsbergen.”[/h]

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]Tarasov et al., 2018[/h][h=6]“In the Korovinskoe record (Fig. 10A) the first increase in temperate deciduous tree/shrub percentages is dated to ca. 10,400 cal BP followed by a second, more pronounced increase (up to 21%) between ca. 10,100 and 9800 cal BP. The latter rise corresponds to maximum summer SSTs (i.e. 6-7°C above the mean modern SST value) reconstructed in the NE North Atlantic (Fig. 10E) and the NW Barents Sea (Fig. 10F).”[/h][h=6]“A pollen-based reconstruction of the summer temperature anomaly at Lake Kurjanovas (Fig. 1) in Latvia suggests that the warmest interval in the area located ca. 270 km west of Korovinskoe occurred ca. 8100-5600 cal BP (Fig. 10C; Heikkila and Seppa, 2010).”[/h][h=6]“Mangerud and Svendsen (2018) reported appearance of the most warmth-demanding mollusk species ca. 1000 km farther north of its current distribution indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10,200-9200 cal BP and that the regional climate was as warm as present by ca. 11,000 cal BP.”[/h]

---

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]Köseoğlu et al., 2018[/h][h=6]“The core 70 site is characterised by extensive modern sea ice conditions (≈80% SpSIC [Spring Sea Ice Concentration]) and the downcore record represents a gradual evolution of sea ice cover in the northern Barents Sea from ice-free conditions during the early Holocene to prolonged seasonal sea ice presence prevalent in the region today. The primarily insolation-controlled southward expansion of sea ice cover previously inferred for the core site throughout the Holocene (Belt et al., 2015; Berben et al., 2017) is reflected in the CT model assessment. Consistent with the onset of the Holocene Thermal Maximum and the resulting proximity of the annual maximum sea ice edge to the core site between ca. 9.5–8.5 cal kyr BP evident from low PIIIIP25-derived SpSIC (ca. 5–15%), the CT model predicts mostly marginal sea ice conditions during this interval.”[/h][h=6]“From ca. 10.0–1.5 cal kyr BP, ice-free conditions characterised the core 11 site, as evidenced by consistently low SpSIC (ca. <10%) and marginal sea ice conditions predicted by the CT model, and further supported by an enhancement of AW [Arctic Water] inflow to the core site from ca. 9.8 cal kyr BP (Groot et al., 2014)”[/h]

 

[Media_Truth]

:laughat: You go copy & pasted posts from pseudoscience/conspiracy blogs. That's about as low as you can go.

And these same blogs are run by High School educated novices.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do rivers cause the sea to rise, dude? Glaciers are just slow moving rivers.

Oh come now. They can. If for 20 years, they flowed faster than the precipitation builds them, we would see a rise. If for 20 years, they flowed slower than the precipitation builds than, we would see a lowering.

 

[Surface Detail]

When you go low, we go high.

[h=4]

[/h][h=3]Lovell et al., 2018[/h][h=6]“Most large tidewater glaciers in Svalbard are known to have surged at least once in the last few hundred years. However, very little information exists on the frequency, timing or magnitude of surges prior to the Little Ice Age (LIA) maximum in ∼1900. We investigate the sediment-landform assemblages produced by multiple advances of the Nathorstbreen glacier system (NGS) in order to reconstruct its Late Holocene surge history. The glacier has recently undergone one of the largest surges ever observed in Svalbard, advancing ∼16 km from 2008 to 2016.”[/h][h=6]“By combining these data with previous marine geological investigations in inner and outer Van Keulenfjorden, we demonstrate that NGS [Nathorstbreen glacier system] has advanced at least four times prior to the recent 2008–2016 surge: twice at ∼2.7 kyr BP, at ∼1160 AD, and in ∼1890. This represents a unique record of the timing and magnitude of Late Holocene tidewater glacier surges in Svalbard.”[/h]

What point are you trying to make? Glacial surges happen every now and again, apparently when water accumulates at the base of a glacier enabling it to flow more easily. So what?

 

[Lord of Planar]

What point are you trying to make? Glacial surges happen every now and again, apparently when water accumulates at the base of a glacier enabling it to flow more easily. So what?

But whenever an antarctic ice shelf breaks off, or high flow, you guys are ecstatic.

 

[Surface Detail]

But whenever an antarctic ice shelf breaks off, or high flow, you guys are ecstatic.

Are you actually incapable of contributing sensibly to a discussion?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Are you actually incapable of contributing sensibly to a discussion?

When something worth talking about comes along, I do give worth while answers that you ignore.

 

[Jack Hays]

What point are you trying to make? Glacial surges happen every now and again, apparently when water accumulates at the base of a glacier enabling it to flow more easily. So what?

The not uncommon nature of the event is the point. Glaciers recede and grow.

 

[Surface Detail]

The not uncommon nature of the event is the point. Glaciers recede and grow.

The paper is about glacial surges, not glacial growth or recession.

 

[Jack Hays]

The paper is about glacial surges, not glacial growth or recession.

Nonetheless every retreat is trumpeted.

 

[Surface Detail]

Nonetheless every retreat is trumpeted.

Non sequitur. You're the one doing the trumpeting, though you're still being very coy on your reason for trumpeting about glacial surges.

 

[Jack Hays]

Non sequitur. You're the one doing the trumpeting, though you're still being very coy on your reason for trumpeting about glacial surges.

Not at all. If we always highlight retreats of glaciers I see no reason not to mention their advances also. Not to mention earlier ice-free periods.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh come now. They can. If for 20 years, they flowed faster than the precipitation builds them, we would see a rise. If for 20 years, they flowed slower than the precipitation builds than, we would see a lowering.

A river can't flow until it has precipitation to build it. Net result: zero.

 

[Into the Night]

What point are you trying to make? Glacial surges happen every now and again, apparently when water accumulates at the base of a glacier enabling it to flow more easily. So what?

Exactly.

 

[Into the Night]

Nonetheless every retreat is trumpeted.

I've noticed that too. That's because it supports the Church of Global Warming's predictions of doom and gloom.

 

[eohrnberger]

Of course, then there's this.

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Oct. 30, 2015

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.
Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

and also

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

It would appear to be reasonable to hold the position that the data is conflicted, so, no, the science hasn't been 'settled'. Sorry guys. Ply your propaganda that it has on someone else.

 

[Lord of Planar]

A river can't flow until it has precipitation to build it. Net result: zero.

Yes, the long term net when covering a full cycle is zero. hard to determine what a full cycle is to be able to determine a trend by other factors.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I've noticed that too. That's because it supports the Church of Global Warming's predictions of doom and gloom.

Yep.

They will (LOL... trumpet...) every time anything can be tagged to AGW, right or wrong, but are flowing with the river of d'Nile any time someone mentions a fact that doesn't fit their religion.

 

[flogger]

Yep.

They will (LOL... trumpet...) every time anything can be tagged to AGW, right or wrong, but are flowing with the river of d'Nile any time someone mentions a fact that doesn't fit their religion.

I've been on the Nile .... loved it :wink:

 

[Quaestio]

When you go low, we go high.

When Jack goes low, we all go *sigh* - Not another copied and pasted conspiracy blog post.

 

[Quaestio]

Yep.

They will (LOL... trumpet...) every time anything can be tagged to AGW, right or wrong, but are flowing with the river of d'Nile any time someone mentions a fact that doesn't fit their religion.

The Lord of Projection strikes again.