The phrase 'glacial change' needs to be retired

Glacial melting is accelerating more quickly than projected

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 3:01 PM on 10 Sep 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change impacts | climate science | Greenland

Climate change is occurring much faster than the IPCC models project. The Greenland ice sheet is a prime example. Robert Correll, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said in Ilulissat recently:

We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at two metres an hour on a front 5km [3 miles] long and 1,500 metres deep. That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one year to provide drinking water for a city the size of London for a year.

The glacier's movement is accelerated as water flows down "moulins" (see picture) to the ice-bedrock interface at the bottom and acts as a lubricant for the entire glacier to slide and glide on. This "provides a mechanism for rapid, large-scale, dynamic responses of ice sheets to climate warming," according to research led by NASA and MIT scientists [PDF]. Yet this factor has been given "little or no consideration in estimates of ice-sheet response to climate change."

The models are missing the moulins -- even though you can't miss them in the real world. Correll said that flying over the glacier in the 1960s he saw no moulins, but now "there are hundreds of them."

Just how fast can a glacier move? Correll "measured one surge at 5km in 90 minutes -- an extraordinary event."

The whole idea of "glacial change" happening too slowly to see will vanish in a world where glaciers are shrinking so fast that you can actually watch them retreat. Greenland's glaciers are moving faster than America's climate policy, which, I suppose, isn't saying that much anymore.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: The phrase 'glacial change' needs to be retired
4 Comments | Post a Comment

Naturogenic Powers Not Accounted for

Looks like the models are aren't accounting for the real driver -- naturogenic global heating (NGH).

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 9:45 PM on 10 Sep 2007

Heh

If we go off just the natural factors we should be cooling right now.

by GreyFlcn at 11:27 PM on 10 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Don't feed the troll...

it only encourages him.

Actually "Glacial Change" is absolutely appropriate if what you mean by that is suddenly dropping into a deep crevasse where things are completely different than your old regime.

Appropriately in both Iceland and Greenland it is possible to fall through a moulin in a Glacier and drop into boiling hot volcanic springs. I think that's the kind of "Glacial Change" that we should expect.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 12:15 AM on 11 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

4 to 1, 1 to 4 - no one gets out of here alive

If we go off just the natural factors we should be cooling right now.

Solar factors have a forcing of 4, whereas CO2 forcing affects should be reduced to make the models work.

Estimation of the solar fraction
and Svensmark factor:

http://www.john-daly.com/fraction/fraction.htm

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 7:50 AM on 11 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.