Record warmth at the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet
The coldest place in Greenland, and often the entire Northern Hemisphere, is commonly the Summit Station. Located at the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet, 10,551 feet (3216 meters) above sea level, and 415 miles (670 km) north of the Arctic Circle, Summit rarely sees temperatures that rise above the freezing mark. In the 12-year span 2000 - 2011, Summit temperatures rose above freezing only four times, according to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera. But remarkably, over the past week, temperatures at Summit have eclipsed the freezing mark on five days, including four days in a row from July 11 - 14. There are actually three weather stations located at the location--Summit, Summit-US, and Summit AWS. The highest reliable temperature measured at any of the three stations is now the 3.6°C (38.5°F) measured on Monday, July 16, 2012 at Summit-US. A 4.4°C reading at Summit in May, 2010 is bogus, as can be seen by looking at the adjacent station. Similarly, a 3.3°C reading from June 2004 is also bad. Records at Summit began in 1987.
Video 1. A 20-ton tractor attempting to repair a bridge washed out by the raging Watson River on July 11, 2012 in Kangerlussauaq, Greenland gets washed downstream. The driver escaped unharmed. Image taken from an article, Warm air over the ice sheet provides great drama in Greenland, at the Danish Meteorological Institute's web site.
Record heat leads to major flooding in Greenland
The record heat has triggered significant melting of Greenland's Ice Sheet. According to the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, on July 11, glacier melt water from the Russell Glacier flooded the Watson River, smashing two bridges connecting the north and south of Kangerlussuaq (Sønder Strømfjord), a small settlement in southwestern Greenland. The flow rate of 3.5 million liters/sec was almost double the previous record flow rate. The latest forecast for Summit calls for cooler conditions over the coming week, with no more above-freezing temperatures at Summit.
Another huge iceberg calves off of Greenland's Petermann Glacier
A massive ice island two times the size of Manhattan and half as thick as the Empire State Building calved off of Greenland's Petermann Glacier on Monday, July 16, 2012. According to Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware's College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment in his Icy Seas blog, the break-off point has been visible for at least 8 years in satellite imagery, and has been propagating at 1 km/year towards Nares Strait. The same glacier calved an iceberg twice as big back on August 4, 2010--the largest iceberg observed in the Arctic since 1962. The freshwater stored in that ice island could have kept the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years, or kept all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days. “While the size is not as spectacular as it was in 2010, the fact that it follows so closely to the 2010 event brings the glacier’s terminus to a location where it has not been for at least 150 years,” Muenchow said in a university press release. “Northwest Greenland and northeast Canada are warming more than five times faster than the rest of the world, but the observed warming is not proof that the diminishing ice shelf is caused by this, because air temperatures have little effect on this glacier; ocean temperatures do, and our ocean temperature time series are only five to eight years long — too short to establish a robust warming signal.”
Figure 1. The calving of a massive 46 square-mile iceberg two times the size of Manhattan from Greenland's Petermann Glacier on July 14 - 18, 2012, as seen using MODIS satellite imagery. Image credit: NASA.
Figure 2. Look familiar? Two years ago, a 100 square-mile ice island broke off the Petermann Glacier. It was the largest iceberg in the Arctic since 1962. Image taken by NASA's Aqua satellite on August 21, 2010. Image credit: NASA. I've constructed a 7-frame satellite animation available here that shows the calving and break-up of the Petermann Glacier ice island. The animation begins on August 5, 2010, and ends on September 21, with images spaced about 8 days apart. The images were taken by NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites.
Related posts
Unprecedented May heat in Greenland; update on 2011 Greenland ice melt
Greenland update for 2010: record melting and a massive calving event
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 — Blog Index
Have fun!
Exactly
If you read this blog though, you would think the world is collapsing all around us.
Now I do believe we are warming as a planet.
And the two sides arguing about it muddy up the true scientific discussion by insisting it is ALL man made.
The climate change crowd could gain more support if they would move away from the political influences and debate the issue on merit. can you draw a correlation between co2 levels and what we are seeing? Sure, but there are also natural causes. Volcanic activity, sun cycles, etc etc.
This is more complex than fossil fuels.
Also I can remember if it was two or three years ago, but Texas and other parts of the country had record cold in June -July. Where was all the panic then?
Nea,
I don't mind the posts about GW when they are informed and educational, but some preach it and try to force it down everyone's throat. There's a big difference. There are some I will read, but it depends on the author, others when I see who the author is, I skip it. I may be missing good information, but I don't want the preaching. As I said, big difference.
Link
Overcast with a chance of a thunderstorm and rain. High of 91F with a heat index of 102F. Breezy. Winds from the ESE at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of rain 70%
I actually enjoy true debate on the subject.
But you will rarely find that here.
Here if you do not insist man is destroying the planet you are just a troll.
There is just as much science that indicates the warming is part of a larger cycle we do not understand. But no one wants to discuss that. just want to push wind power and electric cars as the solution.
If everyone in the US stopped driving cars today, the rest of the world will not.
So then what.
No one has found an economical replacement for fossil fuels yet. When they do I will be the first to jump on board. Fusion is getting close, and will be a great step forward. But to think wind mills and solar panels are going to stop climate change is just crazy.
It wont.
Ask Solindra, i just heard this morning, that chevy dealers are facilitating a buy and sell promotion on the chevy volt. Apparently you can buy one of these fire traps, and get your 7500 dollar tax credit, then turn right around and sell the car back to the dealer.
And it is all legal.
Good example of politics and government using what needs to be an important discussion for political reasons and shutting down true debate.
Yeah Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday look very wet across FL. Could be several inches of rain across some areas of C & S FL.
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
off the coast of Newfoundland/Labrador in 2011
Youtube Video
I could be mistaken, but sounds like you are saying a tornado in Sask. is new or unusual. If we are to believe (add: this...)
Doesn't seem to be anything new or unusual about tornadoes in Saskatchewan according to Wikipedia's excellent article about Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks...
"Of all the provinces, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan average the most tornadoes per season, around 15, followed by Quebec with less than 10. New Brunswick and the interior of British Columbia are also recognized tornado zones. All other province and territories have significantly less threat from tornadoes. The peak season in Canada is in the summer months when clashing air masses move north, as opposed to the spring season in the United States southern-central plains, although tornadoes in Canada have occurred in spring, fall and very rarely winter."
Also mentions Canada's most deadly tornado occurred in Saskatchewan in 1912. When looking at tornado occurrence, we need to keep in mind increased population means increased reporting. Better radar over the years aids in ID-ing tors that in the past may have gone unreported.
Balancing act.
(T-62)
now ill have nightmares
Politics? Who brings politics to the plate? The data itself is apolitical; it is what it is. Where politics come into play is when it comes time to determine policy responses to the changing trends. That's an appropriate place for disagreement and difference. Unfortunately, there's a huge interest in denying the data and obfuscating the actual scientific record and the implications driven by the data alone (see, for example, the recent NC coastal flood map debacle)-- that's not appropriate. If people and their leaders want to stand with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut, that's their business...but they shouldn't expect that this approach grants them equal voice and equal footing with the folks who actually are collecting and examining the data and basing their viewpoints off of careful, reasoned analysis of same.
In short, I think it would be awesome if we could have this debate framed only on what the data are, and could keep politics out of it entirely.
As an aside, what variations in volcanic or solar activity explain the observed patterns of global temperatures?
"The violence there has only gotten worse, and the loss of lives has only increased," Panetta said, "which tells us that this is a situation that is rapidly spinning out of control."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/07/1 9/the-cheap-way-to-deal-with-climate-change-iron-f ertilisation-of-the-oceans/
frankly I do not think it is a good idea.
We dump enough stuff in the ocean already.
As an avid scuba diver, and marine aquarium owner this seems risky.
schistkicker you are very naive if you dont think this issue is being politicized.
Come on, be real.
And on the subject of volcanoes and sun cycles, you could find the science if you wanted to.
it is out there.
well then if 936 millibars is the record low pressure for a cold core system, then that 921 MB low near Antarctica that the other poster showed on the post on page 9, shattered that record.
This is my real problem with the debate right now - people either misunderstanding or outright lying and using hyperbole to make their position seem more reasonable. No AGW proponent has claimed or even suggested that the warming is ALL man made. It's statistically impossible to back up such a claim with the data available. All that's claimed is that humans are a significant contributing factor in the modern temperature increase.
You're right, the science IS out there-- and the hypothesis that the variations we're observing are due to solar cycles and volcanic activity has been tested and rejected. Repeatedly.
And I wasn't aware that datapoints, themselves, had a liberal or conservative bias...
If it is true that the other planets are also warming at a similar rate, then thats a pretty good indicator that all the "man-made" aspect of the global warming is just bunk. I have never disputed that the earth was heating up, I was just one that wasn't ready to jump to the conclusion that 1. it was all man induced like most of the usual suspects think, and 2. I am one that realizes if it is warming, there really isn't a darn thing we can do about it. I think its a good idea to try and create a healthier planet by reducing chemicals that go into the air, but by no means do I think it is going to alter the current warming if/ when we do reduce them, especially given the data about the other planets also warming.
post 425
There it is again.
Some humble advice to the skeptics: You cannot expect others to see your point of view when you habitually misstate theirs.
anybody; links?
DAY 4-8 CONVECTIVE OUTLOOK
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
0350 AM CDT THU JUL 19 2012
VALID 221200Z - 271200Z
...DISCUSSION...
AN UPPER RIDGE WILL HOLD OVER THE CNTRL U.S. FOR THE D4-D5
PERIOD...WITH MODEST NW FLOW ACROSS THE GREAT LAKES INTO THE NE.
FORCING FOR STORMS...ANYWHERE FROM THE NRN PLAINS INTO THE GREAT
LAKES...WILL BE WARM ADVECTION...WITH A FEW SMALL CLUSTERS OF STORMS
WITH MARGINAL WIND AND HAIL THREATS EACH DAY.
AS AN UPPER LOW MOVES INTO THE NRN ROCKIES ON D6...A MORE
SUBSTANTIAL SEVERE THREAT MAY MATERIALIZE OVER ND AND NRN MN TUE
NIGHT...WITH THE THREAT PERSISTING ACROSS MN/WI/MI ON WED/D7 AND
INTO THE LOWER LAKES REGION BY THU/D8. THIS TROUGH WILL BRING
FORCING WITH A COLD FRONT...AS WELL AS STRONG FLOW AND SHEAR FOR
SEVERE INTO AN AREA THAT WILL BE UNSTABLE. THIS GENERAL SOLUTION IS
SUPPORTED BY BOTH THE ECMWF AND GFS MODELS...WITH RELATIVELY LITTLE
ENSEMBLE SPREAD. WHILE POSITION ERROR MAY BE ON THE ORDER OF 200
MILES WITH THE EVENTUAL COLD FRONT...THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR AN
OUTLOOK THIS FAR OUT. ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE MADE IN SUBSEQUENT
OUTLOOKS AS THE EVENT NEARS.
..JEWELL.. 07/19/2012
There aren't any. I've never heard of such a thing. I think it's a denialist coming up with an excuse to promote his or her anti GW Campaign.
shows the sun is not getting hotter.
Link
shows how volcanoes come into play.
I hope I don't have to post a link for the laws of thermodynamics.
We can mostly agree that average global temperature is rising. We know that we cannot just make more heat, it has to come from somewhere. If the sun is not hotter (read above link) we have to be retaining more heat in the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere best fits the known data.
Really, "I am only an egg" and better than me have posted all this. I am surprised we are still arguing.
While they are at it, I'd like to see them produce scientific proof of UFOs, unicorns, and leprechauns.
Somehow, I think the last 3 will come first.
LOL!
Morning, Grothar!
I just jumped into the convo, and have no intention of fighting - just mocking and irritating people who refuse to post with an open mind.
here's a little jumping off point.. information is like a shiny red ball on the playground; it's play time ;)
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle as do most contentious issues. There are weather cycles mostly ignored in the pro GW discussions which, when the cycle completes, leaves most of the advocates of GW silent. It still does not alleviate corporate responsibility to the environment, but it is not realistic to say they are the sole cause when the weather cycles are omitted from the discussion.
Be careful, they may take their ball and go home.
(or they may be afraid we will start a sudden game of dodgeball against them)
here's a 918mb low
I think those of us who post the most often about GW have ever stated than man is the ONLY cause. Personally, I am fully aware that there are other factors at play with warming. I've never denied those. What gets me is when those factors are accounted for, there is still an underlying warming trend. Where is that coming from? Science has been able to account for just about every other source of warming known - and there is still a warming trend.
Where could that heat be coming from? It isn't because the sun is somehow pumping out more heat. It isn't because the planet is pumping out more heat. Yet, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is a known greenhouse gas). Where is that CO2 coming from? Natural processes can't explain the increase. But CO2 is byproduct of combustion, and the world economy relies on the combustion of fossil fuels, which are a known geological carbon sink... OH SNAP!
As for breathing the tainted air, they have medicines for that. Might want to look into those.
That's not chicken.
I actually pity you.
Viewing: 501 - 551
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 — Blog Index