“Greenland’s Glaciers Might Be Melting 100 Times As Fast As Previously Thought
A computer model has been created by researchers at the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin that determines the rate at which Greenland’s glacier fronts are melting.”
Greenland’s Glaciers Might Be Melting 100 Times As Fast As Previously Thought – UT News
Greenland’s largest glacier is growing for the first time since at least 1850.
Jakobshavn Glacier Grows for Third Straight Year – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
“Observations of the Alpine glaciers during a series of years have supplied proof that these great ice streams have long been in prove of recession. Similar evidence with regard to the Greenland glaciers has not been collected over & wile area, though Dr, M. C. Engell, of Copenhagen, who visited the Jakobshavn glacier last summer, has made a collection of facts which seems to show conclusively that the glaciers of Greenland are also receding.
Scientific American: Supplement – Google Books
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 14, 14-25
100 times faster?
The last and only time science was so off was when they switched from the ice age scare to global warming.
And now they found once again magnitudes of more energy than expected.
(maybe every co2 molecule has a tiny nuclear reactor inside which now turned from fission into fusion?)
And it is not 78 times faster,or 91 or 113 times.But 100 times.
I love those round numbers as they are so easy to remember and so convenient for propaganda and so scientific.
This model must be based on Bidens brain.
(and btw where’s the missing sea level rise if things are so bad?
And wouldn’t a glacier that loses 20 m a year lose 2000m a year if it melt 100* Faster?)
At least noone can claim these guys are pulling punches.
No more twice or three times as fast as it was in the good old global warming times – but a hundred times.That’s real progressivism and climate disruption.
I guess it’ll take some month until we get used to these new numbers.
100 times faster?
No, 100 AS fast as they previously thought. Does that mean that if they are negatively melting, they are doing that also 100 times as fast as they previously thought?
There is also a “may be” in there, which the journalist fails to mention. And then, as is true with ALL Monte Carlo simulations, you can get whatever answer you want by tweaking various parameters, just a little, so that nothing looks too outrageous.
Radical Activist Modellers, or RAM, fail 100 times more often than Average Joe looking out his window: The Science™.
The retreat thru 1883, perhaps 1893, (about 25% of the retreat over the entire time span) is almost certainly due to the lingering effects of the Little Ice Age. Frigid weather reduces precipitation & increases sublimation. That combination either diminishes glaciers or slows their growth.
So Ice Ages which last between 50-120 thousand or so years, all self extinguish by being too cold-and having too little precipitation? Suddenly, at the end of that many thousands of years? Sublimation does occur at very low temperature and pressure. I don’t have a chart handy, so I can’t say more.
HMMM, intriguing extension of frigid cold’s long, long-term effects on continental ice cover.
Maybe the chain reaction is: Snowfields, continental glaciers and alpine glaciers disappear. As a result, sea level rises several hundred feet, thereby drowning low-lying or other areas. Seas freeze extensively. Extensive sea ice reflects more solar heat back into space, amplifying global chilling. Amplifying global chilling wipes out land vegetation, further amplifying global chilling.
The end result is Ice Ball Earth. Ice skaters take the place of sunbathers in FL, the Med, Hawaii, and low-lying islands everywhere;-}
Better stop now, before giving climate alarmists another catastrophe with which to terrify much of the public.
Just as air precipitates once it cools to its dew point, also a glacier cannot sublimate more water than the air can hold at its dew point. At very low temperatures, the dew point water mass is also very low, so it takes very little evaporation or sublimation to fill the air to saturation, and once the air is filled, it will begin to precipitate the excess moisture back onto the glacier. There will be equilibrium with a very small water mass in the air as long as the temperature is low.
Here are some psychometric charts to show that at really low temperatures the amount of moisture needed to saturate the air in small. Hence, sublimation or evaporation at these temperatures will saturate the air quickly and the moisture will snow out of the air.
https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/images/strategies-to-reduce-moisture-condensation-in-food-facilities/akton_lowtemp_chart_si_mobile-768×590.jpg
https://blog.qwarecmms.com/hubfs/Psychrometric-Chart-1.jpg?t=1535133467292#keepProtocol
The narrow area in the far lower left is low temperatures. The relative humidity lines are all converging at a very little water content per lb mass of air, meaning that very little moisture will saturate the air. So I don’t think sublimation will “dehydrate” a glacier under very cold conditions.
A computer model has been created….
A model built on a shaky hypothesis. Therein lies the problem. GIGO
Oh come now, it is very difficult to code up Tarot card reading, or goat entrails.
And messy.
“Greenland’s Glaciers Might Be Melting 100 Times As Fast As Previously Thought”
And I MIGHT hit the PowerBall grand prize tomorrow. My odds of being accurate are equal to their “computer model”. Probably better! And I don’t even have a ticket!
Semantic gobbledygook perpetrated by matholes!
“Melting Faster” by itself is meaningless. Is there an increasing mass of ice upstream from the melt zone? Causing the ice river to move faster toward the warmer sea? Then the faster melt is merely to meet/offset the increasing mass balance .
Melting faster if true says nothing about the total mass of the ice, or the area covered.
A 10 gram ice cube in water may melt at 0.5 gram/minute, but a 2,000 tonne iceberg may melt at 20,000,000 grams per minute! One melts faster because it’s bigger and has more surface area exposed to the warmer water, which has an exceptional thermal capacity and thermal transfer ability.
IF this exercise of a constipated mathematician working it out with a pencil has any merit, it is lacking context with the vague characterization of “melting faster”!
‘A computer model has been created by researchers’
Don’t they have an app for that yet?