Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Whose data is wrong?  (Read 4203 times)

lanevn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Whose data is wrong?
« on: November 02, 2013, 04:28:58 PM »
How to explain difference between http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php that show now below average and http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.html that show for same region above average?

JimD

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2013, 08:04:31 PM »
Let me hazard a guess.  Neither is wrong.  It looks like you may be presenting an apples to oranges comparison.

The ESRL chart is for the entire world.

The DMI chart is for the area north of 80 degrees.

If you look at the ESRL chart and visualize the area north of 80 degrees (i.e. attempting to compare apples to apples) it looks to be pretty consistent with the DMI chart.  Then one has to research the measurement methods of the two sites and see if they use different methods and/or metrics.  If they do not use the same then one would also expect variations between them.

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ggelsrinc

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2013, 10:42:37 PM »
How to explain difference between http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php that show now below average and http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.html that show for same region above average?




Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.html

Notice the base period is 1985 to 1995 smoothed with a 5 day running average!

The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.
 More information can be found here.


Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Notice the base period is 1958 to 1995, is called ERA40 and more information can be found here:

The green curve is based on ERA40 data for the period 1958 to 2002. ERA40 data
are in fact analyses, made in the same way as above, but done as a hind-cast,
using a fixed version of the NWP model, and spending time on carefully
validating and eventually correct or remove all observations found to be in
error, before the data assimilation. These, so-called "re-analysis", data
represent our best estimate of the properties of the atmosphere for the period
they cover.


http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf

NOAA uses NCDC data, which is the largest archive in the world of weather data and DMI is:

The Danish Meteorological Institute (Danish: Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut, Danish pronunciation: [ˈd̥anmɑːɡ̊s meteɐ̯o̞ˈlo̝ˀisɡ̊ə e̞nsd̥iˈtud̥]) is the official Danish meteorological institute, administrated by the Ministry of Transport and Energy. The institute makes weather forecasts and observations for Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Meteorological_Institute

The world doesn't have great data on areas 80 degrees and above or areas of the whole world even today, so data from 1958 has to be lacking even more. Using the exact same data to compare with two different base periods isn't going to create the same anomaly. If you check GISS and CRU, you will notice 5 degree by 5 degree areas that are blank, even when good present data exists in those areas, because they lack good data for the base period to compare with.

In all cases of checking temperature anomalies, they are just doing the best they can with what they have and wrong has nothing to do with it. 

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3990
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2013, 10:44:24 AM »
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.

In other words: modeled data, not observation. Still very useful though.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

lanevn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2013, 11:21:03 AM »
Notice the base period is 1985 to 1995 smoothed with a 5 day running average!
Notice the base period is 1958 to 1995, is called ERA40 and more information can be found here:

But in this case 1958-1995 must be warmer than 1985-1995.

lanevn

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2013, 11:30:47 AM »
Also DMI show that last summer were coldest among latest 56 summers. It looks strange, as I know noone confirm such record?

ggelsrinc

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2013, 02:19:34 PM »
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.

In other words: modeled data, not observation. Still very useful though.

True, it is modeled to establish the base period, creating the early missing data, but Denmark doesn't have the resources of the US and uses much of the same data to make their analysis or product. The big difference in those two examples is the base period, whether modeled or not. Anomalies based on two different base periods only produce the same product when things don't change over time, which doesn't happen in our present world. Neither base period is absolutely correct, nor are the past and present measurements compared to it, so it's the relative correctness of the difference between measurements compared to a base period that counts and once a base period is established, only the correctness of current measurements compared to it counts as uncertainty, because the base period is a constant. It should be obvious that corrections to a base period require listing the present data to a new version, so accurate comparisons to the past can be made, if past data can't be corrected. An example like de-trending global warming to monitor climate patterns comes to mind as an example of creating a new version. 

Sticking to the theme of this thread, in other words:

In all cases of checking temperature anomalies, they are just doing the best they can with what they have and wrong has nothing to do with it. 

No one pays scientists to lie or paint an improper picture of our universe, because scientists live on their reputation to provide accurate information or use their imagination to support good hypotheses to explain the universe they live in. Much of that university work in climate science is done by students who volunteer their time and the same is true for many branches of science. The few devils with science degrees who have sold their souls should have insisted on a better price, because no good scientist will ever take them seriously about anything in the future. It's a sin greater than idol worship, without a god to forgive them, like getting a death in science sentence. Science encourages speculation, but banishment is the price for lying in science's name and there is no mercy.

The majority of scientists work for corporations, not the government or institutes of higher learning and very few scientists even in corporations sell out. I have had people confess to me, they were paid to go on the internet and lie, but have never heard someone claim they were paid on the internet to tell the truth. For a scientist, truth in itself is the perpetual reward. The wise appreciate correction.

I hope it's obvious what I said, my ramblings, aren't directed at you or anyone in particular on this site and are just general statements. This subject brought back bad memories of an attack on my first love and I was foolish enough to launch another pre-emptive strike, instead of just petting my dog.   

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2017, 11:53:55 PM »
F. Trinoli, so many thanks for taking the opportunity to respond and to give your perspective!
<Discussion moved here from "The 2017 Melting Season" thread:>

Drawing from my 39-year experience (1978-2017) of hearing experts' sea ice forecasts, so that you perhaps understand my perspective listening to this almost four decades - and also drawing on complaints made to the UN Secretary-general's offices by nations outside the US-UK-EU axis:

that back:

- in 1980's when I was at school, I was taught that climatic warming from GHG was becoming a problem but it would be around year 3,500 (or about a millennium and a half) before the Arctic Ocean becomes "ice free" in summers.

- in February 2007, the Arctic Council's "Arctic Impact" report predicted summer sea ice loss occurring by the year 2150 (then 143 years in future). The Arctic Council also produced sea ice area and extent forecast maps for two periods (2040-2060's and 2070-2100) as enclosed

- in May 2012 Professor Sir John Beddington stated that summer sea ice may survive until the year 2099 or 2100 (for 87 or 88 summer seasons) as stated by HM Government reply to AMEC on 30.05.2012 as enclosed. This was apparently a stretch from the UK Meteorological Office's view of ice being lost by 2070 using creative wording "towards the end of the 21st century"

I see these 'geological time' scale-based optimisms melt time and again. Sadly, I fear to have to see more of them come and go. For me, "job finished" is that for all practical intents and purposes all frozen water of Arctic is gone soon after the blue ocean emerges:

(1) Bøllinger Warming by methane, followed by
(2) exhaustive North GrIS surface melting and
(3) Heindric Ice Berg Armada (= Ice Debris Flows + Slip-Slide Ice Discharges + Hydrofracturing of North Greenland Ice Sheet on land + Rapid Erosion Forces + Perimeter and Continental Slope Failures), producing the job finished:
(4) the Last Dryas as Greenland Ice Sheet land containment failure fills the Atlantic/Arctic Ocean with ice debris. During this final - brief - episode sea ice suddenly spreads out far to the Atlantic,
(4a) so that the Gulf Stream is pushed sideways (towards the Iberian Peninsula) and that
(4b) rapid ice and snow advance results until the ice bergs melt away and only then
(5) resumed warming of ice-free Northern Hemisphere emerges (with high CO2-base-load, unlike the Ice-Ages-of-185-ppm whose warming was driven by seabed and permafrost methane destabilization) as lighter-than-air methane accumulates at stratum well above land (ice) surfaces to leave no mark on ice cores.

I have expressed in geoengineering circles my view that at the point (5) Arctic Geoengineering will become acceptable to the general public to prolong the Last Dryas induced sea ice. Before that Solar Radiation Managment (SRM) is unlikely to get adequate public support for it to be tested, financed and deployed in large scale. My work at Sea Research Society is based on this time horizon. (Yet, I hope things do not go my way and I am totally wrong this time, but many earth systems are showing signs of great stress already). Neither is the past sea ice / ice shelf / land ice destruction time scaling proved anywhere reliable and so UN will see more complaints.

My position is that current "fast-forward" ice melting saga will continue seamlessly from sea to land at the same speed of change, or even greater than that we have seen since optimism of pre-Jim Hansen 1988 testimony era and Rio summit 1992 and all above misguided 'glacial' timescales.

We'll see within 10 years from now, if you are right or me, on post-blue ocean melting job finished on a fast or a slow lane. I exclude minor, thick ice in rugged elevated mountain pockets of Arctic. The totality prospects of absolute ice loss is comprehended my many nations of the world outside US-UK-EU group-think and reflected in the statement by the UN Secretary-general Ban ki-Moon (enclosed).

: F.Tnioli  August 10, 2017, 12:09:31 PM

    : VeliAlbertKallio  August 10, 2017, 12:02:50 AM

        "...to finish the job?"

        Misconception. I disagree! The job isn't "finished" at that point, but only at its very beginning! The ocean melting advances and its re-freeze delays further. This exposes the ocean to sunlight much closer to the solstice and then staying exposed to that sunlight for longer. I say, this will be the beginning, not the end! This because sun's extra energy from growing insolation will be mopped up by the glaciers, permafrost soils and seabed containing methane. The real drama, 'ko.yaa.nis.katsi', then begins.  :-\

    Not misconception on his part. Misunderstanding on yours, rather. He meant the specific job of making Arctic go blue for the 1st time, most probably. Even if he didn't mean exactly that, - what he said _means_ exactly that. While what you described - is a set of "next jobs" in line. The term "job", itself, implies finite amount of work required to complete it; what you described is (practically) not finite, but rather geological thing in terms of its timescale. This topic is practical.

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2017, 12:28:20 AM »
Further: <text from UN Secretary-general's excerpt on this matter>

While Her Excellency Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria raised this to then-current UN Secretary-general Ban ki-Moon for the ABC Nations at New York during the UN General Assembly of September 2007, I raised it simultaneously for the First Nations at Arctic Mirror of Life symposium convened by Ban ki-Moon's predecessor the former UN Secretary-general HE Kofi Annan.

My representation there (RSE VII) was based on the First Nations ethnoclimatology motion (UNGA 101292) which was presented to the United Nations General Assembly in immediate aftermath of The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (ECO92), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Both motions of the above nations stipulate a very rapid loss of cryosphere which is occurring well within one's lifetime, instead of long geological period (beyond one's lifetime) as advocated by the Western academia. Here is Ban ki-Moon's statement on resultant sea level rise after meeting ABC nations (Argentine | Bolivia | Chile) representatives that maintain Antarctic research communities.

The First Nations position is likewise but based on their ancient recollections of the rapid collapse of Foxe-Laurentide ice dome from the Hudson Bay area.

My evidence-giving at the UK Houses of Parliament has been largely reflecting these nations' positions and Germany's decisions to pull out nuclear reactors from the sea sides as a precaution of perceived risk of unpredictable sea level instabilities in future. The draft paper can be read here: https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 12:57:38 AM by VeliAlbertKallio »

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2017, 11:10:14 AM »
(3) Heindric Ice Berg Armada (= Ice Debris Flows + Slip-Slide Ice Discharges + Hydrofracturing of North Greenland Ice Sheet on land + Rapid Erosion Forces + Perimeter and Continental Slope Failures), producing the job finished:
This is 100% a glaciological prediction - can you find peer reviewed publications by glaciologists predicting this mode of ice-sheet failure in Greenland? I've spent quite a bit of time talking about the Greenland ice sheet with professional glaciologists and I don't recall it ever been mentioned. References please.

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2017, 01:53:44 PM »
That 2040-2060 projection from 2007 looks like it is already here.

Frankly I'm not sure yet if this is the beginning of abrupt climate change or a preview of  abrupt climate change (I'm hoping for another hiatus).
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2017, 05:15:27 PM »
(3) Heindric Ice Berg Armada (= Ice Debris Flows + Slip-Slide Ice Discharges + Hydrofracturing of North Greenland Ice Sheet on land + Rapid Erosion Forces + Perimeter and Continental Slope Failures), producing the job finished:
This is 100% a glaciological prediction - can you find peer reviewed publications by glaciologists predicting this mode of ice-sheet failure in Greenland? I've spent quite a bit of time talking about the Greenland ice sheet with professional glaciologists and I don't recall it ever been mentioned. References please.
Hey VAK care to comment on the above? Have you invented a new failure-mode for the Greenland ice sheet or is this already known in the glaciological community?

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2017, 10:28:21 AM »
(3) Heindric Ice Berg Armada (= Ice Debris Flows + Slip-Slide Ice Discharges + Hydrofracturing of North Greenland Ice Sheet on land + Rapid Erosion Forces + Perimeter and Continental Slope Failures), producing the job finished:
This is 100% a glaciological prediction - can you find peer reviewed publications by glaciologists predicting this mode of ice-sheet failure in Greenland? I've spent quite a bit of time talking about the Greenland ice sheet with professional glaciologists and I don't recall it ever been mentioned. References please.
Hey VAK care to comment on the above? Have you invented a new failure-mode for the Greenland ice sheet or is this already known in the glaciological community?
These are the only pieces I could find on Heidrich events in the future of Greenland, not very convincing and lacking proper references:

https://robertscribbler.com/2013/08/08/climate-monsters-we-want-to-keep-in-the-closet-heinrich-events-superstorms-and-warming-the-deep-ocean/

https://robertscribbler.com/2014/03/17/nature-human-warming-now-pushing-entire-greenland-ice-sheet-into-the-ocean/

Are there any credible papers that claim parts of Greenland are unstable so that they can trigger "catastrophic" events? Let's see them.

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2017, 02:08:24 AM »
I suggest familiarising with the subject of Iceberg Plow Marks (IPMs) around Greenland seas.

A good starting point for this subject is this paper cited below. If you can't get hold of it email me: albert_kallio@hotmail.com for full .pdf (it seems that only its abstract is on the Internet): http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GML....27..383K 

"Side-scan sonar and sub-bottom profiling investigations of the Iceland-Faeroe Ridge have revealed the widespread presence of iceberg plowmarks at water depths between 750 and 860 m. This is well beyond the maximum water depth reported for ice scouring in the adjacent areas of the North Atlantic. An exceptionally deep iceberg plowmark was found at the southern flank of the ridge, which could be traced down to 940 m water depth. Supported by published nearby sediment core data, a Saalian (MIS 6) age of that iceberg plowmark is suggested. Considering a glacial sea level of 120 m below present, the paleo-draft of this iceberg is estimated to have been at least 820 m. The keel depth of such giant icebergs drifting in the glacial northern North Atlantic significantly exceeds the draft dimensions of large icebergs seen today in the Antarctic." Antoon Kuijpers & Friedrich Werner: Extremely deep-draft iceberg scouring in the glacial North Atlantic Ocean; Geo-Mar Lett (2007) 27:383–389, DOI 10.1007/s00367-007-0059-1.

The issue of rapid ice sheet failure has sat on the UN Secretary-general's desk at least 26 years, being there even before Rio Earth Summit convened in 1992. It has seen Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Kofi Atta Annan, and here it is cited by Ban Ki-moon. (It is basically a complaint lodged by non-western nations who disagree that ice sheets will end by melting peacefully over many millennia.) Note the first article pointing that North Atlantic Ocean and the climate for Younger Dryas cooled 15 Celcius degrees within just one summer season - there is no other force on the planet or sun that can cause this steep and fast water and air temperature dropping within just a few weeks - except very large volume of ice and icy melt water. If you look at GCMs on this, you notice the cold specks of water on the Chilean coast (due to associated failure of Ronne Ice Shelf bent by rapid sea level rise and pile up of ice against South America), Australian South and West Coasts (due to associated failure of Ross Ice Shelf bent by rapid sea level rise and pile up against Australia). In addition, the oil drillers have found deposits in the estuaries of the Amazon and the Congo that are also very cold isolated anomalies (small dots). The assumptions what GCMs have, artificially have tried to 'blot out' these cold anomalies  but it is rather obvious that there was something going on very rapidly that coupled by tearing off Southern Hemisphere ice shelves: a sudden sea level jump from massive ice load on the NH. This is what many nations protest against the West, also manifested as ice shelf shearings on SH apparently as the tongue of rapidly rising water bent and sheared off the ice shelves (breaking them loose to be able to drift off Antarctica).

« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 02:25:51 AM by VeliAlbertKallio »

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1542
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2017, 06:11:44 AM »
VAK, why resort to an iceberg armada to explain sudden cooling, when lake Agassiz suddenly emptying is a much simpler explanation?

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2017, 11:34:14 AM »
The situation now is very much different with that at the end of the last ice age with regards to land ice and glacial lake configuration. WAIS-collapse is discussed a lot in scientific literature, but I haven't seen glaciologists arguing that anything similar could happen in Greenland, even in theory. There is no underwater-channel into the interior of the Greenland ice-sheet, except a very narrow one at Jakobshaven. In particular NEGIS is being blocked by an inland-ridge several hundred meters above sea-level (see bedmap2), and that is before any rebound that takes place when the overlaying ice-sheet thins due to warming.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 03:38:16 PM by nukefix »

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2017, 08:13:51 PM »
Sorry, I mis-pasted from the full .pdf file by leaving out the most relevant point!

"The most likely source area for this extreme deep-draft type of iceberg is inferred to be southern Greenland. Plowmark direction, which in our case indicates iceberg entrainment by the North Atlantic Current, is suggested to be a useful indicator of (sub)surface paleo-circulation during late Pleistocene iceberg surging and deglaciation episodes."

Yes, Oren. There are other IPMs related to the exit of water and ice not only the Lake Agassiz but also relating to the collapse of the seaside between Newfoundland and Baffin Island that held the Foxe-Laurentide Ice Dome. If you read my evidence, I cited one particularly relating to the collapse of that part of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. (The Lake Agassiz was at the perimetry where medium thick and shallow snow field accumulated, the northern tall dome despatching later. There were several routes where meltwater escaped. Most relevant is here the Hudson Strait route.)

The Lake Agassiz does not explain on its own the process properly. While NH cooled, this was opposed by simultaneous warming of SH. This because ice debris and melt water was pushed Northewards by the Gulf Steam, this barrier of ice deflecting it also more towards east (Europe), i.e. the Iberian Peninsula as 1 km tall ice wall blocked northward movement of the current. Curiously, the implement of sea water tongue on the initial sea level jump also caused Northward movement of broken ice shelves and sea ice from the Ross Sea and the Weddell Sea and elsewhere. But on the SH movement from the Ross Sea towards North is towards the Equator, thus ice piled up on the Chilean coast, some went along Brazil to the Amazon estuary and also turning east towards the Congo. The Weddel Sea ice and shelves packed the West and South coast of Australia. As ice shifted rapidly to the Equator, it was replaced by a very powerful current towards Antarctica keeping it warm (SH positive feedback effect v. NH negative feedback effect).

I trust this answers fully where the complaints to the UN Secretary-general lie. You may want to study archives of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. The full statement of Ban ki-Moon is enclosed.

Note that I have not said what Nukefix must have mis-read. We fear the failure occurs in future after the Arctic Ocean is summer-time ice free from midseason and it requires EXHAUSTIVE surface melting. I never said such situation is there already, nor anyone worried nuclear reactors say so.

VAK, why resort to an iceberg armada to explain sudden cooling, when lake Agassiz suddenly emptying is a much simpler explanation?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 01:54:51 AM by VeliAlbertKallio »

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2017, 12:16:02 PM »
Note that I have not said what Nukefix must have mis-read. We fear the failure occurs in future after the Arctic Ocean is summer-time ice free from midseason and it requires EXHAUSTIVE surface melting. I never said such situation is there already, nor anyone worried nuclear reactors say so.
I don't think that is glaciologically possible, according to present understanding the Greenland ice-sheet just isn't unstable the way WAIS is. Or can you find recent research articles arguing so?

BTW this is why I called the claim "alarmism" - scientists could not invent threats and present them to the parlament/media as their reputation would be seriously damaged.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 611
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2017, 02:18:39 PM »
You are all wrong and I have the proof!
You can find it in the gutenberg.org book-

A Challenge to the JOHNS HOPKINS University
ONE HUNDRED PROOFS THAT THE EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE.
Dedicated to RICHARD A. PROCTOR, Esq.
“The Greatest Astronomer of the Age.”
By WM. CARPENTER,

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/55387/55387-h/55387-h.htm#proof19

Herewith one of the proofs:-
25. The surveyor’s plans in relation to the laying of the first Atlantic Telegraph cable, show that in 1665 miles—from Valentia, Ireland, to St. John’s, Newfoundland—the surface of the Atlantic Ocean is a LEVEL surface—not the astronomers’ “level,” either! The authoritative drawings, published at the time, are a standing evidence of the fact, and form a practical proof that Earth is not a globe. [11]

26. If the Earth were a globe, it would, if we take Valentia to be the place of departure, curvate downwards, in the 1665 miles across the Atlantic to Newfoundland, according to the astronomers’ own tables, more than three-hundred miles; but, as the surface of the Atlantic does not do so—the fact of its levelness having been clearly demonstrated by Telegraph Cable surveyors,—it follows that we have a grand proof that Earth is not a globe.

Perhaps I should send copies to Lamar Smith and Scott Pruitt (and Roberts University)?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2017, 06:57:45 PM »
I have a list of articles just send email to myself albert_kallio@hotmail.com and you get .pdf files. I will only send recent files, not any Cuellar or Ghali era although the complainant nations have not changed their position (accusing corruption in the Western academia and delay in publishing). i.e. the Argentineans and Chileans pointing out that it was US/UK/EU academia whose reports about the Larsen A collapse in 1995 came out in papers, not Statement on Ice Failure by Juan Pedro Brückner, the Director of the Argentinean Matienzo Base in Antarctica although they were eye witnesses. Their detailed descriptions came out with 17-year delay (after many US/UK/EU papers had been published in the mean time) when, finally appearing in The Scientific American, July 2012. This was about 5 years after it was raised to Ban ki-Moon's office who subsequently conducted due diligence investigations on scientific conduct and visited the region and people involved.

Note that the file I mentioned quotes South Greenland IPM sourcing. This cannot occur now due to the narrowing of Ilulissat ice fjord outlet when the isostatic forces pushed its neck tight altering the contour that allowed the supersize icebergs to come out and the retreat of the ice sheet's edge towards inland. The canyon system feeding this formerly wider exit is still extant beneath ice sheet (graph enclosed). The contour also reflects the larger, more western ancient edge of ice sheet and bergs causing ultra-deep IPMs could have formed in area now covered by sea around the Disco Island, thus reducing need for geological deformations for supersize ice islands exit.

The ice dome not only causes perimeter's vertical uplift to form an elevated shield around the ice dome's edges, but also a spatial tightening of the continental edges when the ice pushes the interior down the edges get squashed tighter. Similarly, the Weischelian Ice Sheet's outlet that crossed across the middle of Sweden has almost completely disappeared by now. (This palaeo-strait let ice out from the Baltic Sea Ice Dome which sat at the centre of the Weischelian Ice Sheet). Even as recently as in the Middle Ages, the Viking's Capital, Birka, was at the seaside in the middle of Central Sweden. Today it is far inland and only the deepest part of that palaeo ice stream carved strait remains water-covered as a freshwater lake.

The above process will cause Melville Bay initially to subside catastrophically by water infested slushy ice (post-sea summer ice era), in the process causing turbidic rockfalls and pulling flat shoreline into a tight neck (like currently in Ilulissat). Once the ice is off-loaded, the wet solidus damage and the nucleation of gases in asthenosphere fluids drives isostatic uplift. This produces either a tight Ilulissat-type narrow passage surrounded by mountains on both sides. Or, if the discharge of rock is large enough to produce a sufficient 4th rapid erosion force (planing), enough abrasion can occur to remove rocks to get the Hudson Strait type wide opening to form there. The immersed rocks in front of the Melville Bay appear fractured and subsided in the past (refer to the Melville Bay bethymetric map between the red bars), there Greenland's subsidence has shown a slight acceleration in recent years (see Greenland map enclosed).

Today it is impossible for 1 km tall ice bergs to start slide over Ilulissat town. This section has attained its equilibrium state with the perimeter there too tight for large intact ice islands to pass through the current Ilulissat Ice Fjord. When Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) studied IPMs in that cited article, a much wider and far more flat outlet terrain existed in the south - similar to Melville Bay's flattened coastline. This was similar to the neck of the Hudson Strait barrier which failed between the Baffin Island and the Newfoundland (see my earlier images).

Ilulissat's palaeoicefjord was divided into the two main branches. The southern branch pushed ice south of Disko Island, the northern branch north of Disco Island. These remain still today very wide palaeofjords, whereas the present-day's narrower ice fjord due to coastal margin's tightening caused by the subsidence of Greenland's interior. The wider southern outlet of Disco discharged the largest and deepest-swimming ice islands, northern outlet route discharging smaller ones.

The fourth source of the Northern Hemisphere's ultra-deep IPMs was the Kara Ice Dome when the dome's footing on the north end crashed due to melt water lubrication causing a slip-slide. Its outlet moraine terminus is left intact. This event discharged large ice islands that lodged into the Lomonosov Ridge hitting the sea floor 1,200 metres below the current Arctic Ocean sea surface. There remains many obscure details of these super-deep IPMs: i.e. the nucleation of gases within magmas during lowered sea surfaces that caused magma-swelling related isostatic seabed uplift. (This reduces the actual, required keel depth for the ice bergs to hit the ocean floor to make IPMs.)

It is vitally important to differentiate between Holocene stability era fjords that are basically overspilling mechanisms over the edges from Pleistocene instability era fjords that drove Heindrich Ice Berg Calvings as continental edges failed to contain ever changing and unstable ice masses. The metamophosis of cold, dry, stable and moraine-forming ice sheets into warm, wet, dynamic and aggregate-forming ice sheets post-Arctic-Ocean-sea-ice is at the centre of all this 'climate change experiment' today.

Note that I have not said what Nukefix must have mis-read. We fear the failure occurs in future after the Arctic Ocean is summer-time ice free from midseason and it requires EXHAUSTIVE surface melting. I never said such situation is there already, nor anyone worried nuclear reactors say so.
I don't think that is glaciologically possible, according to present understanding the Greenland ice-sheet just isn't unstable the way WAIS is. Or can you find recent research articles arguing so?

BTW this is why I called the claim "alarmism" - scientists could not invent threats and present them to the parlament/media as their reputation would be seriously damaged.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 08:51:03 PM by VeliAlbertKallio »

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2017, 07:13:55 PM »
I understand that you don't agree with our point of view, but jibes aren't helpful. I'm keen to try to address challenges as they often expose other aspects not mentioned (and papers missed out).
<snip>

FishOutofWater

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 271
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2017, 04:09:04 AM »
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.

In other words: modeled data, not observation. Still very useful though.

You might want to read up on the reanalysis project. It involves both observation and modeling. Over the Arctic the data are so sparse that some form of interpolation between observations is always needed to make weather maps. Reanalysis is a very sophisticated way to improve interpolation in data sparse regions.

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2017, 09:33:42 AM »
The ice dome not only causes perimeter's vertical uplift to form an elevated shield around the ice dome's edges, but also a spatial tightening of the continental edges when the ice pushes the interior down the edges get squashed tighter. Similarly, the Weischelian Ice Sheet's outlet that crossed across the middle of Sweden has almost completely disappeared by now. (This palaeo-strait let ice out from the Baltic Sea Ice Dome which sat at the centre of the Weischelian Ice Sheet). Even as recently as in the Middle Ages, the Viking's Capital, Birka, was at the seaside in the middle of Central Sweden. Today it is far inland and only the deepest part of that palaeo ice stream carved strait remains water-covered as a freshwater lake.

The above process will cause Melville Bay initially to subside catastrophically by water infested slushy ice (post-sea summer ice era), in the process causing turbidic rockfalls and pulling flat shoreline into a tight neck (like currently in Ilulissat).

Subside catastrophically? What are you talking about? Reality-check: Melville-bay is rebounding fast (see Fig. 2) and this is only going to increase if and when the ice-sheet thins out:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/30/11944.full.pdf

Once the ice is off-loaded, the wet solidus damage and the nucleation of gases in asthenosphere fluids drives isostatic uplift. This produces either a tight Ilulissat-type narrow passage surrounded by mountains on both sides. Or, if the discharge of rock is large enough to produce a sufficient 4th rapid erosion force (planing), enough abrasion can occur to remove rocks to get the Hudson Strait type wide opening to form there.

You have not posted any references that point this being a glaciological concern in the near future of GIS.

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2017, 03:57:04 PM »
Hi Nukefix, I have been offering the references but you are not emailing me to get these articles or been citing them through your own library resources. How can there be a dialogue if you do not even bother reading the science papers I am talking about?

"The most likely source area for this extreme deep-draft type of iceberg is inferred to be southern Greenland. Plowmark direction, which in our case indicates iceberg entrainment by the North Atlantic Current, is suggested to be a useful indicator of (sub)surface paleo-circulation during late Pleistocene iceberg surging and deglaciation episodes." Antoon Kuijpers & Friedrich Werner: Extremely deep-draft iceberg scouring in the glacial North Atlantic Ocean; Geo-Mar Lett (2007) 27:383–389, DOI 10.1007/s00367-007-0059-1.

My question to you was:

Where do you see 1km and taller ice slabs coming out of Greenland as happened the last time there was a warming in Greenland? Where you place their source in Greenland Ice Sheet?
[/quote]
You have not posted any references that point this being a glaciological concern in the near future of GIS.
[/quote]

I have only stated that once the northern, low-lying part of GrIS has an exhaustive surface melting (water-ponding on surface) the accumulation of meltwater within its ice and beneath it metamorphoses the cold, dry, stable and moraine-forming ice sheet into the warm, wet, dynamic and aggregate-forming ice sheet (before the next Heindrich Ice Berg Calving and the subsequent Last Dryas cooling effect occurs). The rapid erosion forces of cavitation, plucking, kolking and planing activate in post-sea ice. These are terminal ice sheet processes. The role of accumulative impact moulins and crevasses in the GrIS interior behind shield then dominates. Currently, moulins are seasonal impact moulins that drain water down along shield slope into sea or through fjords rather than building up the melt water behind subglacial shield barrier. Loss of sea ice and permafrost soils and seabed releasing CO2 and CH4 will further contribute to the warmth.

I wish to know how do you cool most of the North Atlantic surface waters within a single summer (within a few weeks) by 15 Celsius degrees other than by a major discharge of melt water and ice? That is a big, sudden drop of surface water temperature very quickly. I cannot see long wave radiation under any weather condition causing so much heat loss from the ocean water. Please note that the Germans are concerned of this occurring again and flooding nuclear reactors. Just revisit the article enclosed. Its worth trumpeting out before building more sea side reactors in UK.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 04:26:30 PM by VeliAlbertKallio »

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2017, 04:16:47 PM »
Please post the references/citations here please, of course only published research will do. No need to have secret papers on shady hard disks :P

There was a lot more ice around at the end of the last ice age than now, including now extinct ice sheets. Therefore it's not surprising to me that bigger icebergs were being created. If you think there's a threat please show the references...


TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2017, 04:39:13 PM »
I hope I'm not off topic here, but there is a possibility, a strong possibility in my mind, that an asteroid strike on the Laurentide ice sheet brought on the Younger Dryas, shattered the ice sheet, and ended the Rancholabrean mammals reign in North America. A boundary layer referred to as the "Black Mat" that is rife with nano diamonds, iridium, and fused carbon is evidence of the event.
If this did occur it makes the ending of the last ice age a unique event, and comparisons of it to modern warming inconsequential.
Terry



VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2017, 04:51:23 PM »
OK. I agree with you this time what you say here.

I have also wondered if there was possibly a tall ice dome section sitting over the Disco Island, but then this may still have the problem how the ice carved northern and southern passage ways round Disco if it were just local ice pile "falling off". The Disco Island formations suggest me that there was a wider infeed of ice across a broad exit front - similar to the Hudson Strait and the Melville Bay broad and flat exits. As per the isostatic rebound across the Melville Bay front, note the image of 2010 anomaly how sensitive that isostatic rise is to weather events like snow or rain accumulation v. off-loading by melt. There will be a tipping point where this reverses as slushy, water-infested ice begins to pack against the Melville Bay. In fact, the rise changes year-on-year.

I'll take time to list all references carefully, and also take some screen prints which can be discussed as I also have unanswered questions rising from them. I am very afraid of blue ocean.

Please post the references/citations here please, of course only published research will do. No need to have secret papers on shady hard disks :P

There was a lot more ice around at the end of the last ice age than now, including now extinct ice sheets. Therefore it's not surprising to me that bigger icebergs were being created. If you think there's a threat please show the references...

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2017, 04:52:09 PM »
I hope I'm not off topic here, but there is a possibility, a strong possibility in my mind, that an asteroid strike on the Laurentide ice sheet brought on the Younger Dryas, shattered the ice sheet, and ended the Rancholabrean mammals reign in North America. A boundary layer referred to as the "Black Mat" that is rife with nano diamonds, iridium, and fused carbon is evidence of the event.
If this did occur it makes the ending of the last ice age a unique event, and comparisons of it to modern warming inconsequential.
Terry
This hypothesis does not seem to be very popular today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis

Ned W

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2017, 05:37:12 PM »
This hypothesis does not seem to be very popular today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis
I like the following paragraph at the wikipedia page you link to:

A 100-fold spike in the concentration of platinum has also been found in Greenland ice cores, dated to 12,890 BP with 5-year accuracy. This is interpreted as evidence against the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis by the study’s authors, but cited as evidence for the hypothesis by its proponents.

Okay then.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2017, 06:08:09 PM »
I hope I'm not off topic here, but there is a possibility, a strong possibility in my mind, that an asteroid strike on the Laurentide ice sheet brought on the Younger Dryas, shattered the ice sheet, and ended the Rancholabrean mammals reign in North America. A boundary layer referred to as the "Black Mat" that is rife with nano diamonds, iridium, and fused carbon is evidence of the event.
If this did occur it makes the ending of the last ice age a unique event, and comparisons of it to modern warming inconsequential.
Terry
This hypothesis does not seem to be very popular today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis
Acceptance of the black mat theory waxes and wains. I've samples of the strata from 5 sites from the AZ/Mexican border to New Mexico to Nevada. No equipment to analyze what I have except to note the strong magnetic attraction.
The gent formerly in charge of the paleo collection at ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) claims to have found nano particles in every tested Mammoth or Mastodon tusk, always in the upper portions, indicating that the beast was upright when the "event" occurred.
I recall the same kind of back and forth before Continental Drift was accepted.
Accepting that the Clovis culture killed the last Mammoth isn't difficult, but who went after the last pack of Saber toothed cats? The last dire wolf? The last horse? or the last camel?
Terry

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1542
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2017, 07:37:09 AM »
From the same Wikipedia source:
The megafaunal extinction pattern observed in North America poses a problem for the bolide impact scenario, since it raises the question why large mammals should be preferentially exterminated over small mammals or other vertebrates. Additionally, some extant megafaunal species such as bison and Brown bear seem to have been little affected by the extinction event, while the environmental devastation caused by a bolide impact would not be expected to discriminate. Also, it appears that there was collapse in North American megafaunal population from 14,800 to 13,700 BP, well before the date of the hypothetical extraterrestrial impact, possibly from anthropogenic activities, including hunting.

Research published in 2012 has shown that the so-called "black mats" are easily explained by typical earth processes in wetland environments.The study of black mats, that are common in prehistorical wetland deposits which represent shallow marshlands, that were from 6000 to 40,000 years ago in the southwestern USA and Atacama Desert in Chile, showed elevated concentrations of iridium and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules and titanomagnetite grains. It was suggested that because these markers are found within or at the base of black mats, irrespective of age or location, suggests that these markers arise from processes common to wetland systems, and probably not as a result of catastrophic bolide impacts.

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2017, 09:48:37 AM »
As per the isostatic rebound across the Melville Bay front, note the image of 2010 anomaly how sensitive that isostatic rise is to weather events like snow or rain accumulation v. off-loading by melt.
Yes, this is normal. On top of the "slow" ground uplift happening due to removal of huge ice masses at the end of the last ice age, there's also a "fast" component of uplift that happens very rapidly (~immediately) when ice-mass is removed. Therefore the "anomaly"-plot shows the anomaly against average "slow" and "fast" uplift. As indicated in the figure I posted, the Melville-bay area is rebounding very rapidly at about 1-2cm per year (average "slow" + average "fast" over the GPS time-series).

There will be a tipping point where this reverses as slushy, water-infested ice begins to pack against the Melville Bay.
That does not appear to be possible.

johnm33

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2017, 03:18:14 PM »
For anyone who wants an alternatve explanation for the sudden changes at the 'black mat' event you have to start with Velikovsky, you won't find any peer reveiwed papers expanding his thesis as to produce such a paper means instant excommunication from the scientific 'guild'. His extremely radical predictions for Venus, when proved correct, made no difference, a salutory lesson for all. Nevertheless his work, with all it's faults, shows the consistency of the ancients stories and warnings about when the earth stopped spinning, some experiencing prolonged day others night. Every culture that survived those tumultuous times left a record in their stories as a warning for future generations. When you take into account that the ancients generally used the heavens as a kind of memory mansion, around which to weave their stories, with the benefit of knowing where you are on the world being the purpose, like the 'Berber' or native south sea navigators still do, it's unlikely that their observations would be wrong, as impossible as they seem.
Looking into the consequences of such events allows for some quite radical insights into geology and in many ways makes for a more coherent narrative. Most ore bodies and mineral 'pipes' could have been caused by the intense heat generated by the translation of kinetic energy as the earths rotation slowed, [particularly effective with heavy metals] and then shifted to a wider orbit, afterwards of course with all that energy and steam vented from 'the fountains of the deep' lost to space there would follow an extremely radical cooling event as the spin restarted, etc. etc.
That said, those times passed and we now live in a more clockwork age and similar disturbances are almost impossible to concieve, and for our purposes the chief problem is the extent to which the Arctic ocean will expand southwards as all the permafrost melts, will it reach almost down to the Caspian as related by both Celtic and Persian legend? how far on the Canadian side? How will this impact world climate?

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2017, 05:26:01 PM »
Nevertheless his work, with all it's faults, shows the consistency of the ancients stories and warnings about when the earth stopped spinning, some experiencing prolonged day others night.
Nice fairy-tale. Or where do you reckon the angular momentum and the associated ginormous amount of energy went, and how did it return?

johnm33

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2017, 06:02:30 PM »
Plasma cosmology and Electric universe are at least looking for the answers to that, they're both broad 'churches'. Should we discard the eye witness accounts? and settle for the clockwork gravity model, when almost everything we see 'out there' is plasma or plasma interactions?

VeliAlbertKallio

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Sea Research Society (SRS)
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2017, 12:06:05 AM »
The sliding GrIS ice slabs minimum thickness is determined as follows [1,085 m - 126 m] / 0.87]) =  1,110 metres (where 1,085 m is the water depth on IPM's keel marks, 126 m is the sea level minimum, and 0.87(*) is the ratio of GrIS ice to sea water). The Davis Strait sill appears to be a constricting southern entry at 700 metres, therefore, leaving the likeliest sourcing of these collapsed ice sheet slabs (ice islands) to be from Greenland or the Hudson Strait regions.

Abstract During a recent (2006) cruise of RV ‘Dana’ high resolution side-scan sonar and sub-bottom profiling was carried out on selected shelf and slope transects offshore Disko Bugt, central West Greenland. Available commercial seismic data from the margin indicate here irregular seabed morphology with erosional features locally extending down to c. 1100 m water depth. The newly acquired side-scan sonar data reveal the presence of giant iceberg plow marks extending (sub)parallel to the slope between about 800 and 1085 m water depth. The height difference between bottom of the scours and rim crest is up to 40 m. The largest plow marks are about 750 m wide. To date no observed modern icebergs including those from Antarctica have drafts in excess of c. 500 m. Taking into account maximum glacial sea level lowering of c. 120 m, the paleo-iceberg keel depth was at least 950 m. Due to the presence of the relatively shallow (b700 m) sill of Davis Strait to the south, calving of these paleo-icebergs is thought to have occurred from an ice margin in the Baffin Bay region (Jakobshavn Isbræ paleo-ice stream?). The depth of occurrence (N1000 m) and dimensions of the plow marks are concluded to be exceptional, and comparable to glacial scouring features reported from the Arctic Ocean.

A. Kuijpers, F. Dalhoff, M.P. Brandt, P. Hümbs, T. Schott, A. Zotova: "Giant iceberg plow marks at more than 1 km water depth offshore West Greenland", Marine Geology 246 (2007) 60–64. Elsevier.

(*) https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=iipHowMuchOfAnIcebergIsBelowTheWater

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2017, 09:52:21 AM »
...
You have not provided any references asserting that the Greenland ice sheet can produce Heindrich-style events during this interglacial. You also made unsubstantiated claims about catastrophic subsidence that can soon take place in the Melville-bay sector. Sorry to say but this smells like FAKE THREATS that are without basis.  :o >:( :(

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1942
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2017, 08:44:51 PM »
Oren
I'm aware of at least some of the arguments against the Black Mat theory. Small animals can seek shelter much more easily that their larger brethren. That other organic mats exist is not a point of contention.


I've collected samples from a very recently dried spring that, were the wetlands theory correct, should have been continuous, but instead formed a distinct strata. Also from arid regions where water has never collected.
Dry lake beds & Greenland ice cores lay down distinct sequential layers. In both environments the Black Mat is found.


It you are searching for Clovis, or Rancholabrean sites in the Southwest, they're found directly under the Mat.


This won't be settled until the old men who have built their reputations without the mat die off. I'm located on a rise that shed it's ice early, and I still have hope to find a remnant here in Ontario.


Terry

Feeltheburn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2017, 06:59:14 AM »
I am really puzzled by the assertion in the cited article that the collapse of the western ice shelf in Antarctica would raise sea levels by 6 meters. I understand that nuance is not the forte of the media, but what the article should have said is that if the ice shelf were to collapse, the conditions required for this to happen would be accompanied by rapid flow of glaciers into the ocean, which would be the actual cause of sea level rise. Ice shelves melting per se cannot raise sea level since they are floating and, according to Archimedes principle, already displace a volume of water equal to their mass. Also, the amount of "cantilevering" of ice shelves, as some have asserted, is statistically insignificant since ice cannot form a "balcony" that stretches far out into sea. Ice is far too brittle for that to happen. Rather, they are floating except at the margins next to land and therefore cannot raise significantly sea level when they melt, as the volume of resulting melt water, which is about 90% that of ice, equals the volume of sea water already displaced.
Feel The Burn!

nukefix

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Whose data is wrong?
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2017, 10:46:10 AM »
I am really puzzled by the assertion in the cited article that the collapse of the western ice shelf in Antarctica would raise sea levels by 6 meters. I understand that nuance is not the forte of the media, but what the article should have said is that if the ice shelf were to collapse, the conditions required for this to happen would be accompanied by rapid flow of glaciers into the ocean, which would be the actual cause of sea level rise. Ice shelves melting per se cannot raise sea level since they are floating and, according to Archimedes principle, already displace a volume of water equal to their mass.
You've misunderstood. The part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) that is unstable and likely to raise sea-levels is the ice-sheet itself, not the floating ice shelves. WAIS is up to 2000m thick and laying on bedrock way below current sea-level, which makes it inherently unstable. It has collapsed before in warmer climates and is likely to do that again if warming continues.


« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 10:53:32 AM by nukefix »