Reports from the Greenland Ice - DarkSnow 2014

[AndyH]

One practicing this technique spins in place as fast as possible while alternately covering eyes and ears

Can you not stick to a discussion of the evident facts, than resort to name-calling? The irony of hiding one's eyes seems to be lost on you. Have you seen the photos from 1800's? Have you seen sea ice with no such blackening, yet presumably would still be subject to 'soot'. Glaciers seem a very bad place to go look for soot as they will always be contaminated with glacial sediment. Are you blind to that simple observation?

The key here, I think, in their investigation is to ask whether whatever is churned up in that glacier causing algal growth is accelerated by the presence of 'seed quantities' soot. That seems a perfectly sensible question. But that visible blackness is clearly not soot on its own. Maybe you realise that already, and are being contrary just for an argument?

First you attack me, then you slur my mental ability. Without skipping a beat, you pull up the 1800s. Then you try sleight-of-hand by conflating surface deposition with subsurface contaminants. Then you attack me again. Paragraph. Then you again conflate 'churned up' with surface algal growth and soot. Then you suggest that is sensible. Then you make a statement that makes it crystal clear that you have no idea what the subject project is about or what they're studying - yet feel obligated to comment. And you finish in grand fashion with a personal attack. :lol: :lol:

Donald - read some IPCC reports. Read the info already provided about the Dark Snow project and really, really pay attention to what they ARE and ARE NOT evaluating. Then, and only then, come back to comment. If you want to deny anything, please do it in the designated denial post in the cesspool area of the forum. The others here, being kind and amazingly patient, will humor you in hopes that you'll one day have an 'ah-ha' moment. I'm simply going to stand here with this rolled up newspaper as you've danced on my last nerve thrice too many times.

 

[donald]

First you attack me, then you slur my mental ability.

:?:

Where/when?

I think you've got that the wrong way around. You began the ad hominems with

I think we need to submit a new climate denial tactic to Climate Central: the Whirling Dervish.

One practicing this technique spins in place as fast as possible while alternately covering eyes and ears so as to give plausible deniability to their claims that they have not seen proof. They then emit various phrases that attempts to reinforce the significance of their doubt, attack messengers, and reiterate any of the other ~135 known denial messages.

Good on ya, Donald - you've invented a twist on the existing list of denial techniques. You might be an engineer after all!

I wasn't even aware this thread was another 'climate change' IPCC-type effort.

... whatever.... :?

I can see you simply don't want to contemplate the reality that sea pack ice doesn't go black like this, and that there has been such ice for hundreds of years, so it can't be 'soot' alone else all such ice would be affected equally.

 

[AndyH]

I can see you simply don't want to contemplate the reality that sea pack ice doesn't go black like this, and that there has been such ice for hundreds of years, so it can't be 'soot' alone else all such ice would be affected equally.

You, Donald, are the...person...talking about sea pack ice. A comment, by the way, for which you have provided ZERO data to support. You slam others for not understanding science while simply asking us to accept your twists as fact.

Ain't gonna happen, sweetheart, ain't gonna happen.

Ice - sea or not - gets discolored when wind currents carry things to it and those things are dumped. Air flow is not uniform across the planet and therefore areas of deposition are not uniform. The Dark Snow team has been on the ground in Greenland because that ice is melting much more quickly than current models predict (in other words, the visual satellite observations and gravity surveys show faster than expected volume loss). One of the causes being quantified is algal growth, the other is carbon deposition downwind of forest fires in the US and Canada.

This thread is about the Dark Snow project and what they're finding when they study Greenland ice and how it's adding additional feedback to the already dire prognosis for the ice. If you want to blather on about other ice, or if you want to try to negate hundreds of years of ice observations, or data and analysis from peer-reviewed science and/or every single IPCC report published to date, then please start another thread and for God's sake bring some data.

 

[Stoaty]

If you wish to unburden yourself of the trouble of thinking for yourself, and abandon any sort of logical critique of anyone who has a published paper, then feel free, but count me out of that sort of attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WetEV]

I can see you simply don't want to contemplate the reality that sea pack ice doesn't go black like this, and that there has been such ice for hundreds of years, so it can't be 'soot' alone else all such ice would be affected equally.

Sea ice mostly doesn't last for hundreds of years(*), and melts from below as well as above. Greenland's land ice can be many thousands of years old, and mostly melts from above. The Arctic Ocean has both currents and winds that move the ice around, including to more southern places where the ice melts. A fair fraction of Arctic Sea ice is first or second year ice.

I don't see how one or two year old sea ice can be affected equally by soot as is multi-thousand year old glacial ice.


(*) Some of the sea ice in the Canadian Arctic, trapped near islands, is perhaps hundreds of years old. There was quite a bit more of this old sea ice before 2007, when most but not all of this old sea ice melted.

 

[AndyH]

Meanwhile, on the other end of the planet...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...e-204-billion-tons-of-ice-in-three-years.html

Antarctica is losing so much mass that it’s actually changing Earth’s gravity.

How much is a lot? The authors of the new paper looked at GOCE and GRACE data for three Antarctic glaciers, and found they are losing approximately 185 billion metric tons (204 billion US tons) of ice each year for the three years of the study. For comparison, all the humans put together weigh approximately 287 million metric tons (316 million US tons)—each of the three glaciers loses more ice mass than the combined weight of humanity.

As someone who researched gravity in graduate school (though more things like black holes than the Earth geoid), I find the fact that we can measure ice loss using gravitational satellites really fascinating even as I’m disturbed by what we discover. But that’s exactly why we do science of this kind: we have to understand the magnitude of the problem. Just as science is a shared endeavor that benefits all of us, climate change will damage all of us — and it will take all of us working together to make sure satellites like GOCE and GRACE aren’t just measuring the magnitude of disaster.

 

[AndyH]

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/10/15/new-photos-from-dark-snow-2014/#more-20725