The IPCC's Richard Alley's alarmist propaganda item "Has the big melt begun? "

"There's little incentive for scientists to do anything but emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to scientists' professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement.

This is the reality that all scientists confront: every issue, be it global warming, cancer or AIDS, competes with other issues for a limited amount of government research funding. And, here in Washington, no one ever received a major research grant by stating that his or her particular issue might not be such a problem after all."

Alley is a lead author for the IPCC assessment report AR4. He lives in virtual reality with Hansen, Mann and Schmidt, and all the other virtual reality propagandists. This piece of pseudo-science is typical of any of the pseudo-science the IPCC gives legitimacy to. From 8 months ago.

Has the big melt begun?
For it to happen by heating from air warmth would takes many thousands of years. A lot more if you allow for relapses into cooling such as we are now experiencing. Ollier, a scientist intimately involved in ice caps and glaciation completely rubbished IPCC scientist’s speculative assumptions on ice caps and glaciers.

Heard the joke about the brainy primates who burned so much fuel that they cooked their home planet with greenhouse warming?
>>>>Heard the joke about immoral scientists who at a cost of over 50 billion dollars duped primates into believing they could burn so much fuel that it would cook their home planet by means of a spent trace gas causing runaway greenhouse warming, without a shred of evidence, then demanded more money?

[image] China’s present coastline is shown in green, rising sea levels are indicated in a thick red line.
Seriously, emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, are rising every year, and many scientists say a drastic reduction is necessary to protect the only known habitable planet in the universe. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted, "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature."
>>>>Warming stopped in 1998. Pseudo scientists have an agenda other than climate rescue, they have given no evidence that passes the smell test during the existence of the IPCC, they’ve done nothing of any consequence to cool the climate, they’ve caused untold damage with their hype and propaganda. Try apparent rising sea levels due to erosion and subsidence. The sea levels rise an average of 1-2 mm per year. That's how it has always been when seas have risen, that's how it will always be while they are rising. It is not unknown for IPCC representatives to misrepresent erosion and subsidence as rising seas. Given that temperature has two states, (for as long as we have ice at the poles, wobble and a variable elliptic solar orbit) rising or falling, it never stands still, do we really want falling temperatures? 12 warmest years, damn that UHI. Taken after 1998, the trend has been ever so slightly down. Remove the urban heat island effects and it is likely more.

Continuing to fuel the greenhouse effect, says noted climatologist James Hansen, could make Earth a "different planet."
>>>>They always use modals, that is the degree of certainty they have. Could, according to inadequate virtual reality machines that have proven wrong. Accidentally getting parts to match reality does not count. Wrong is wrong. Like a stopped watch. You can’t use ancient Fortran’s language based programs created by climatologists, that work on assumption and guesswork to prove co2 reacts to additional IR that just isn’t there despite horrendous exaggeration and repeal of accepted laws. It has yet to be proven we even affect the "GH" effect much less feed it. There is mounting opposition to the scientists who allege it. 400 scientists (to name but a few) have a problem with IPCC science and presentation.

[Image] Place mouse on image to see China's coast after a 6-meter rise in sea level. Vast numbers of people live in these coastal areas, but 6 meters is much a larger rise in sea level than many scientists expect – at least in next century or so. Graphics: Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona.
>>>>A 6-meter rise, let's see, 6000mm dived by 2mm gives 3000 years. Minimum. Let's say the rate does increase, in fact doubles. 6000 divided by 4mm gives 1,500 years. Great, great, great grand children will probably be holidaying on Mars. Holland is subsiding. Why are they not panicking? Why did Al invest in a sea front property recently? Because they know IPCC sea level projections are plain nonsense.

Tomorrow, the IPCC is scheduled to release its third and final report of 2007, covering strategies to reduce the greenhouse warming and prevent massive damage. The three reports of 2007 were one sign of renewed concern over global warming. Millions saw An Inconvenient Truth, history's first Oscar-worthy science lecture. Hundreds, we guess, read harrowing reports on warming from the IPCC, which were written by thousands of scientists from around the world.
>>>>"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich 1970.
Physicists had this to say about AIT; The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning "Al Gore" movies shocking every straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with short waves. AIT, nine errors found by a regular court, 35 by Monckton and various others. The IPCC is the ultimate example off garbage in, garbage out.

But many more read headlines about those reports. The IPCC and other scientists say warming has begun -- as have the long-predicted extinctions, droughts, storms and wildfires.
>>>>“...warming has begun”, it started when the Sun first lit up and stopped in 1998. “-- as have the "long-predicted extinctions" that have nothing to do with air temperature (and have been ongoing due to loss of habitat, hunting, pollution etc.) droughts, (driven by Pacific moods) that fall within natural variation as do storms, and wildfires, seemingly anthropogenic in that fag ends, arson and accidents such as from stubble burning seem to be the primary cause. Warming far from driving species north enables them to expand further north. Storminess shows no overall trend up or down. Wildfires have their own story and AGW has little to do with it.

Island with white sandy beach and thick palm tree grown is barely above tropical blue water
Like many atolls in the Pacific, Aitutaki in the Cook Islands rises only a few meters above sea level. Several island nations, such as Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, are composed entirely of low-lying islands and atolls. Photo courtesy Laurie J. Schmidt, NASA

Tuvalu is not dramatically sinking. To imply it is a bare faced lie founded on manipulated data that originally showed .07 inches per year. The Maldives will still be there a long time from now if sea level trends remain unchanged. Sea rise is not a problem, that's why anxious Al bought a sea front property recently.
The Truth About Tuvalu.

Here's a question: how much will warming raise sea level? Water expands as it warms, but warming can also destabilize or melt the vast ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica, which could cause a dangerous rise in the ocean level.
>>>>Rather a noticeable rise in the ocean level over thousands of years, far from dangerous, ...if ocean warming continues without a break. Ocean warming is so far from aerial trace gas causes, this guy must be on another planet. Oh he is, virtual Earth. A person with a lifetime’s experience produces evidence contrary to IPCC dogma.

Global flooding now looms as its own category of global warming disaster.
>>>> looms as its own category of global warming alarmism; virtual fantasy or absence of fact propagandized as imminent.

New Orleans shows how flooding can wreck a coastal city, and shows the impact of two global warming phenomena: stronger hurricanes and higher sea level.
>>>>Katrina was category 3 when it hit. Far from a devastating cat 5. Nothing to do with levee flood defence failure due to low maintenance and zero improvement then? Much of N.O. is below sea level.
...and shows the impact of two global warming phenomena: Corruption of science and assignation of every event that is dramatic but within natural variation as something novel caused by bum burps and SUVs. Warming (of the water by the Sun and geologic activity) leads to lower strength but possibly more frequent storms. No trend has been found in historical to present day data. For Europe there is a minor downward trend in frequency.

Skinny land of atoll outlines blue waters of the Pacific Arno Atoll in the Marshall Islands, Pacific Ocean, is made of coral reefs. Like several adjacent countries, these islands cannot sustain much sea level rise, and their governments have been vocal opponents of greenhouse-gas pollution. Photo: NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team
>>>>“Reef-building corals thrive only where a number of specific environmental conditions are satisfied (Engeln, 1942). It seemed to be clear that the island-types result primarily from the subsidence of volcanic islands due to the tangential motion of the lithospheric plate (e.g. Scott & Rotondo, 1983). The almost complete absent of atolls north of 28°N in the Pacific is considered to be due to the combined action of rapid sub-aerial erosion of basalts and this tangential component.
Quinn & Matthews (1990) mentioned that the subsidence rate of the Enewetak Atoll is about 39 meters per million years. Scoffin (1987) said that the initial rates of subsidence (first 2 Ma) of mid-ocean ridges are 0.2 mm per year and for mature ocean crust the rate is 0.02 mm per year. Mid-ocean volcanic islands subside as they cool, and the coral reefs that fringe the shores develop into atolls.

Cliff Ollier commented on Mörner’s findings – link.
And an interview with the expert.

Rising seas also threaten the existence of low-lying islands and nations. Last December, the Independent (United Kingdom) reported the first inundation of an inhabited island:
The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true. As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.... In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas.

>>>>The IPCC lead author quotes journalists’ opinions? The Sundarbans are mainly mud and sand. Erosion and settlement are the main factors. Considering the Indian Ocean level appears to be falling or stable, it is interesting that an annual rise around 2mm has been observed at the Sundarbans. Check Mörner’s research group findings for the Maldives, the Indian Ocean level fell and appears stable now. Bogus global warming story - Lohachara Island.

Two global maps indicated that northern hemisphere will suffer the greatest from higher sea levels
Soaring global temperatures are melting glaciers and ice sheets. Glaciers may contribute about 30 centimeters (1 foot) to sea level rise. But there are big questions -- and no good answers -- about the ice sheets. Greenland and Antarctica hold enough water to raise sea level by roughly 70 meters -- 230 feet! They will not melt in the next century, but any rise will harm people living on the coasts. Images: IPCC Working Group I, 2007

>>>>At 1-2mm per year on average. Don’t sell your sea front property just yet.

Further flooding is inevitable, but matters could get a lot worse if the ice caps start to fall apart. Melting ice has bumped sea level in the past: Andrew Shepherd of the University of Edinburgh says the geologic record shows that "collapses of Earth's former ice sheets have caused [sea level] increases of up to 20 meters in less than 500 years" (see #1 in the bibliography).
>>>>Around three quarters of a million years without collapse, else we wouldn’t have ice cores.

A total meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet could raise sea level by seven meters, and the West Antarctic ice sheet by five, the IPCC says. Although the mammoth East Antarctic Ice Sheet could add roughly 50 meters, that sheet seems more stable than the other two.
>>>>At 1-2mm per year on average. I wonder how much the sea level would rise if Uranus, a giant ice planet transferred its water to us through a wormhole say. ~3000 miles is my guess except it would be a futile calculation, just as Alley’s quote is. However should the bigger Jupiter send us its water, sea levels would increase by 100,0000 miles. But that would be speculative, unwarranted alarmism, wouldn’t it?

Earth's glaciers and ice caps move in response to gravity, and sea level rises when their ice enters the ocean. (In contrast, ice shelves and sea ice float, so the furious melting of Arctic ice will not directly affect sea level.) Not that the news from the North Pole is very comforting: On April 30, researchers reported that Arctic sea ice has been melting much faster than IPCC models forecast. "While the ice is disappearing faster than the computer models indicate, both observations and the models point in the same direction: the Arctic is losing ice at an increasingly rapid pace and the impact of greenhouse gases is growing," says Marika Holland, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a study co-author.
>>>>Glacial creep is caused by pressure from above stressing crystals, causing them to lose more atoms than they gain to adjacent crystals. That’s why crystals at the nose are 1000 times bigger than at the source. Increasing outflow is a symptom of increased stress through increased pressure due to precipitation. Ground heat variation plays its part by varying moulin output. Reduction in sea ice is due to warmer water melting from below.

Until recently, melting glaciers got more attention than ice caps. But glaciers can only add a small amount to sea level rise, while the ice caps could add up to 70 meters.
>>>>At the nether ends of the Earth, both ice sheets exist in bowls. They can’t ‘collapse’. The margins can melt into the sea due to elevated water temperature.

Two graphs trace the rising temps of land and air over last 15 years
Sea level and average air temperature both surged in the past 15 years. Circles indicate individual data points. Graph: IPCC 2007
>>>>Warming seas expand. Warming seas warm the air. Add IPCC data stretching and you have alarming air temperature boiling the sea. Except it's cooling.

Ice: It's nice!
Still, the ice caps don't have much impact on sea level now: A new study says Greenland and Antarctica add 0.35 millimeters to sea level rise each year, about 10 percent of the annual rise of 3 millimeters (see #2 in the bibliography).

>>>>**Recent** annual rise contributing to the average 1-2mm p.a. so balancing the decades from 1940 with no significant increase. Freezing winters are not nice.

The study authors noted "renewed speculation of accelerated sea-level rise from the ice sheets under a constant rate of climate warming." Here are some of the causes for concern: The sudden disintegration of the 200-meter-thick Larsen B ice shelf released 720 billion tons of ice from the edge of Antarctica in 2002. The breakup did not directly raise sea level, but ice shelves can restrain the giant, land-based glaciers behind them, and the glaciers behind Larsen B did lurch toward the ocean.
>>>>Are lurches measured in words or column inches? How big a lurch? A humongous lurch? Did it jerk itself into the sea? Merriam Webster: 1: a sudden roll of a ship to one side 2: a jerking or swaying movement; also: STAGGER. Perhaps he’s confused by stick-slip, that’s not hard to believe.
Dark purple is 100% ice as of now, midsummer, where the Larsons broke off. Another IPCC scare piece iced over.

The same thing happened in Greenland, causing the Jakobshavn Glacier to nearly double its speed between 1997 and 2003. Because the glacier is a major discharge route for Greenland's ice, some scientists began to fret about a more general acceleration of the icecap. Even before the speedup, some called it the world's fastest glacier.
Jakobshavn Glacier (circled). It is possible a calved iceberg from it sank Titanic. So it has been out of sync with the climate for a long time. The fact that it accelerated recently shows the presently cooling climate has little to do with it. If the ice continues to extend, it will provide the opportunity to demonstrate whether ice shelves affect glacier speed.

Satellite gravity measurements of Greenland showed that the sub-continent is losing 101 or 239 cubic kilometers of ice each year (see #3 and #4 in the bibliography).
>>>>Gravity measurements include sea ice, accurate to within 138km3. Estimates - “For Antarctica, the approximate volume is 30,000,000 km3. For Greenland, it is approximately 3,000,000 km3.” 239km3= 0.008% x 100years=0.8%. It is only supposition that Greenland’s loss increases water height. (Should we begin to evacuate New York?) Precipitation may cause a lowering of sea level that is lessened by ice mass loss. But that doesn’t fit the models.

A 2006 study (see #5 in the bibliography) of earthquakes produced by sliding Greenland glaciers saw a surge of activity begin in 2002. The researchers suggested that meltwater lubricating the base of the glacier could explain the express-train movement. Here we see a complication of the new glaciology: Glaciologists once thought Greenland's ice cap was stable because it would need hundreds of years to warm up. The new studies suggest the glacier may speed up without even warming up.
>>>>Hansen's lubrication again. How little is known, so much speculation. Express train? Diesel powered glaciers? Magnolev?.

Even evidence that ice is accumulating in the Antarctic is not cause for celebration, despite its use by some climate skeptics to support the "what-me-worry?" approach to climate. Curt Davis, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Missouri at Columbia, measured the interior of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet with a radar satellite and saw a gain of 45 billion tons per year (see #6 in the bibliography). That finding (like a similar one in Greenland) substantiated old predictions that global warming would cause snow and ice to gather in these frozen highlands. Davis calculated that the accumulation -- by itself -- would reduce sea level by 0.12 millimeters per year. But the paper said nothing about the overall effect of the Antarctic ice sheet on sea level, Davis stresses, because the radar was not accurate around the edge of the continent: "We know coastal outlet glaciers are discharging ice very rapidly." To use measurements from the interior as evidence for Antarctica's overall impact on sea level "would open up the possibility of misrepresenting our results, by saying this is representative of the entire ice sheet.
>>>>So extrapolation of sparse measurements should only be allowed when it can cause alarm. Are anti-alarmists to be denied this popular IPCC and science challenged enviros’ strategy?

Ripples slice through the icy top sheet of ice as wind sweeps ice crystals over its top
Scientists are wondering: Are the vast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica really stable, or could they suddenly accelerate the current rise in sea level? These 35-foot-deep crevasses developed as this glacier, in Greenland, stretched while accelerating toward the ocean. Photo: Ian Joughin, University of Washington Applied Physics Lab.

>>>>Water gushing down 35 foot deep crevasses lubricates the base how? Acceleration is from stick-slip.

Cold comfort
Add it up, and you can't add it up: The world scientific community is not sure what to make of this unsettling icy news.

>>>> You can't add up an absence of knowledge. IPCC pseudo science is unsure how to convert minimal fact based on minimal observation into alarm. Why not just lie as usual? Is Ross McKitrick as IPCC coordinator bringing morals to the IPCC?

The 2007 IPCC reports squarely blamed humans for global warming, yet were vague about sea level. Although the international panel projected a sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters by 2090 to 2099, compared to 1980 to 1999, it did not account for the new evidence on rapid glacier movement. According to Richard Alley, an ice expert and an author of IPCC's 2007 report, "We can provide neither a best estimate nor an upper limit on sea level rise, because of a lack of understanding of future changes in ice flow in response to future warming."
>>>> The ice "expert" admits to a lack of understanding.

Alley, a professor of earth and mineral sciences at Penn State University, continued, "After that, we ought to shut up because we don't have a basis in the scientific literature for understanding what will happen. We can't give you a number."
>>>> He ought to shut up but can't even follow your his own prescription, much in the way of Gore.

Learning from Larsen B
Sea level rise was one of the earliest worries related to global warming, but the 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) downplayed the issue, forecasting that snow gathering in the interior of Antarctica and Greenland would offset faster melting around the edges. Glaciers in Alaska and coastal United States made biggest contribution to sea level, glaciers in Europe made none. One year later, Antarctica's giant Larsen B ice shelf suddenly busted up, just seven years after the breakup of nearby Larsen A.

>>>> The underlying philosophy? When you can’t make alarm out of a none event, make something inconsequential into a disaster.

Glaciers have been retreating in most parts of the world, and the retreat is accelerating. Table excludes Antarctica, the largest storehouse of frozen water on the planet. Graphic: IPCC
>>>> Glaciers are shrinking and growing. There may be a net loss. No one has quantified it with anything other than hand waving. Globally, ice cover last year was average.

Although the B-breakup was dramatic, ice shelves do not affect sea level when they break up and melt, since they are already floating. Instead, the question regarding sea level was this: Would the adjacent ice sheet speed up after the release of pressure from the nearby ice shelf?
>>>> It seems that ice has reformed in the Larson areas. Premature alarmism at it finest.

The answer was quick, and disturbing. Yes, the giant ice streams (fast-moving parts of the glacier) behind Larsen B did speed up. A lot. In a press release, Innsbruck Austria] University Professor Helmut Rott commented, "The velocity of the glaciers increased up to eight-fold compared to the speed when the ice shelf buttressed the glaciers." The destruction of the ice shelf was at least partly due to half a century of rising temperatures in the region.
>>>>"…partly due “. Perhaps in the lower tenths of a percent. Warmer water due to perhaps El Nino interfering with circumpolar currents and storminess was responsible.

Breaking Up: Easy to do?
Rott said glaciers above the disintegrated ice shelf had accounted for "about 2 percent of total sea level rise" since 2002. This might not seem huge, but then again, this was just one glacier. The acceleration, Rott said, "demonstrates the vulnerability of ice shelves to climatic warming and the importance of ice shelves for the stability of glaciers up-stream."

Lucky the ice shelves reformed then.

4 images show glacier moving toward water after ice shelf breaks up
The Larsen B Ice Shelf and Hektoria Glacier before, during, and after the Larsen B break-up. The grounding line shows where the glacier last touched ground before floating out as an ice shelf. Newest image shows that the removal of the ice shelf allowed ice that once rested on land to break up and move toward the ocean. Photos: Landsat, NSIDC

>>>>Lucky the ice shelves reformed then.

A similar speedup occurred in Greenland. In a commentary in Science (see #7 in the bibliography), Ian Joughin of the University of Washington wrote: "Over the past decade alone, glacier acceleration has increased Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise by more than 0.3 millimeter per year. ... The rapidity of these changes counters the view of a sluggishly responding ice sheet and indicates that outlet glacier dynamics can respond swiftly to climate change with consequent increases in sea level."
>>>>Net 0.3 after allowing for snow, gross 0.3 or speculative hand-waving? 0.3mm p.a. I'm going to have a nervous breakdown. New York is doomed. doomed I tell you.

Lines on photo track the recession of glacier since 1850
The Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland has gradually receded since it was first measured in 1850. From 1997 to 2003, the rate of recession doubled. Image: NASA

>>>> When there is more precipitation glaciers grow, less they shrink. It takes a long time for the effects to become apparent. Recent times warming of the air has little to do with it.

Melting from below
A warming atmosphere can also destroy glaciers by melting them from below, and this seems to be happening in Greenland and Antarctica. Robert Bindschadler, of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, wrote that several large outlet glaciers in both ice sheets "appear to exhibit a nearly universal signature of recent increased discharge to the ocean. The culprit may be additional heat delivered by subsurface waters melting the submarine bases of these glaciers" (see #8 in the bibliography).

>>>> The usual guesswork and extrapolation without even-handed presentation. "The culprit may be...". Equally it may not. It seems around 45% of glaciers may not be retreating.

Thus while you might expect global warming to melt glaciers through contact with warmer air, "the ocean plays a more critical role than the atmosphere in determining near-term glaciological contributions to changes in sea level," Bindschadler concluded.
>>>>So the lie co2 warms oceans has to be hammered into public consciousness then? The fully used up molecule is capable of anything only in modelers wildest extrapolations. The last ice age was ended by warmer water. The oceans control temperature and co2 levels to the finest degree. We've known that for years. Only IPCC scientists in denial refuse to admit co2 is now harmless to climate.

Image - River of water plunges into the glacier as men, dwarfed by their arctic surroundings, stand atop the ice.
>>>>Showing pics that confound alarmism isn’t allowed.
Icecap rests on a water bed?
Warm water also plays a role in the greasy bottom problem. The vast ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica rest at least partly on liquid water. Greenland's water comes from summer lakes atop the ice. The water in Antarctica probably has two causes: rising Earth heat, and the vast pressure of the ice, which lower the freezing point of water below 0° C.

>>>>Kilometers deep ice cannot rest on a film of greasy water, 30 tons per square foot at 10,000 feet deep. The water level has to be past 80% of the height before ice floats. How did the grease get there?

Meltwater stream flows into a large tunnel, or moulin, in the Greenland ice sheet. Once inside the glacier, the water may flow horizontally. If it reaches the bottom, it could grease the skids, helping Greenland's vast ice sheet to accelerate toward the ocean. Thus warming the surface could speed up the whole ice sheet. Photo by Roger J. Braithwaite, NASA
>>>>Hansen’s lubricant nonsense again. Glaciers have skids? Water horizontal to the moulin is caused by stick-slip friction. The bulk of both ice sheets are in bowl shaped depressions.

Many glaciologists worry that water under the ice sheets will "grease the skids" and allow the giant ice sheets to accelerate toward the ocean. The equation, yet unproven, is this: More warming arrow more water arrow more movement to the sea arrow higher sea level.
>>>>More ocean warming arrow more precipitation arrow lower sea level arrow more movement to the sea. Warming reduces sea levels or reduces the magnitude of the increase due to increased precipitation.

The recent discovery of large lakes under the Antarctic ice cap has fueled this concern. Using a laser satellite that can measure height to within 1.5 centimeters, "We discovered pools of very large quantity, not a steady trickle," says first author Helen Fricker, a research geophysicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The evidence suggested "rivers or channels connecting one lake to another."
>>>>New discoveries continue to show how limited understanding of ice is, (and climate).

Seen through the laser altimeter, the glacier seemed less a sleeping giant than a restless, churning monster. One location on the surface moved 9 meters vertically as it responded to high-pressure water flowing more than a kilometer below.
>>>>Shouldn’t that be, “…believed to be due to high pressure water”? It could equally be due to lateral pressure, ground swell or an unknown factor.

Like corduroy cloth, the ice sheet is covered with ripples
In summer, little lakes form in the Greenland ice sheet, which can feed water to the bottom of the glacier. If this meltwater greases the glacier's movement to the sea, global warming could indirectly raise sea level, without even warming the glacier as a whole. Photo: Ian Joughin, University of Washington Applied Physics Lab.

>>>>They keep banging the glacier drum. Glaciers don’t have a potential flow rate that is suppressed by lack of water underneath. Stick-slip creates friction above 1000 deg. for example. It doesn’t cause sustained acceleration

The significance of these new lakes (at least 145 lakes below Antarctica are known) is not clear. They may have existed for thousands of years, but they may also be growing due to global warming. And nobody can say for sure whether they, like the water under Greenland, could be accelerating the ice sheet. "We don't know for sure if water under ice will change the velocity of the ice, but it can't not" change that velocity, says Fricker. Water makes a road slicker, she notes. Why would it do anything else to the rock under the ice?
In a classic good-news, bad-news statement, she adds, "The message of our study (see #9 in the bibliography) is that this ice sheet we thought we were beginning to understand has all of a sudden revealed a new process, and while that is highlighting our ignorance, at least we are beginning to learn."

>>>>So 5 kilometer deep ice would skid off the road? I wonder how car tires manage to stay in contact. So much to learn but still the alarmism continues as if everything is known.

But one thing's for sure: the phrase "glacial pace" no longer means "slow and steady."
>>>>And it sure has little to do with global warming.

What to make of this?
>>>>IPCC alarmism of course!

So. The ice caps are moving faster but less predictably. What does this mean for sea level rise? Hard to say, and the IPCC, as mentioned, did not say. As Alley observes, the research is so new that prediction is not possible. (Fricker's lakes-in-Antarctica study, to take one example, was published after the IPCC deadline for considering research results.)
Helen F has a well founded background in ice study. Take away the alarmism and she is someone whose opinion is to be respected. Strange she’s swallowed Hansen’s lubrication fantasy.Ice caps move faster - due to increased precipitation building layers of ice, increasing down force. Alley seems hooked on speed.

Still, the IPCC did try to give some framework for envisioning the effect of ice caps on sea level over the next century. For example, if ice flow speeds up in linear fashion with rising temperatures (meaning a straight-line graph can show changes in temperature and ice flow), it should be possible to anticipate sea level rise based on temperature forecasts. "Although there is no reason to expect the world to be linear, it's not a stupid thing to do," Alley says. This assumption yields a steady "but not immense," rise in sea level over the next century due to melting ice, he says.
>>>>It is stupid. It is an IPCC misrule that correlation equals causation. E.g. If heightened underground heat was to blame for seas warming and increased basal melt of glaciers, the IPCC AGW theory disintegrates and carbon credits become even more discreditable. Any research funded by the alarmist organizations in that area? Of course not.

Snow reductions are most extreme in Washington, Oregon, California, Utah and Idaho
Melting ice is not just a problem for coastlines: Mountain snowpack is a major source of freshwater. [Article image, not the one displayed] Color shows result of this formula: (average of 2030 to 2049 / average of 1980 to 1999). In many areas, global warming could more than halve the water supplied from snow. Warming, population growth and desire for a better standard of living could leave 1 billion people short of water by the 2050s, says the IPCC. In the United States, the panel said, "Warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows, exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources." From original image courtesy Stephen Ghan, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

>>>> Warmer oceans cause increased precipitation. We should be worried about ground water reserve depletion. Florida suffered badly and only summer flooding relieved their suffering. Cooler climate means less precipitation, less water coming out of the snowpacks. As well, aren’t the northern US states having a really stormy winter presently? I keep noticing...

Here's another take. Ice sheets have been fairly constant for the past 10,000 years or so, and snowfall on both ice sheets averages about 7 to 8 millimeters per year. "We can sort of figure that before humans started playing around with the system [by making gigatons of greenhouse gases], they were pretty close to balanced," Alley says. Thus ice sheets and glaciers released the same amount of water to the ocean around the edges that they accumulated up top, without changing sea level.
>>>> At times. Other times they caused falling ocean levels due to increased precipitation. A warmer ocean increases precipitation. Gigatons is a reference to the tiny percentage of airborne co2 we emit. 1-3 parts per million per year

Overall, studies of glaciers show several accelerating by a factor of two in the past decade or so, says Richard Alley of Penn State, and one by a factor of eight. "Based on that sample, two, two, two, two, eight, you would probably guess a factor of two speedup" for glaciers in Greenland and perhaps Antarctica. "If everything doubled, we would get 7 to 8 millimeters of rise per year," he says, but in making that point, "you would not pound on the table very hard."
>>>> Because observations confound alarmist suppositions. Glaciers react slowly to changing circumstance. The snowfall increasing pressure now is likely to impact several or more decades from now.

Nonetheless, Alley says the alarms over quick inundation due to melting ice are probably overstated. "Does anyone have any mechanism on the table that would put all of Greenland's ice in the ocean in decades? No. In centuries? Yes. But are we sure of centuries? No."
>>>> I’m sure he meant millennia but allowed the error, “ centuries” to stand due to his political disposition..

You can see where this is heading: We need more research.
>>>> He can’t bring himself to say “money”. The game is up. Time to shift money away from research and into protection of threatened areas and subsidized air-conditioning. Governments are appointed by people to provide protection from such as weather and war. They are all failing badly to protect us from extraordinary advice leading to futile, benefit free, massive expense from crank concentrations such as the IPCC.

[Image] Curve makes jagged ascent as time passes
In Brest, sea level has been rising for two centuries. The effects of global warming may add to the ongoing rise. Graphic: IPCC

>>>> Don’t do much groundwork do they? Cherry picking, a traditional alarmist strategy.
Testing The Waters
"The peak level at Aberdeen was around 1950 at 7087 mm and the lowest point around 1889 at 6887 mm. The overall sea level rise since 1862 is around 70 mm (ie. less than 3 inches), or an averaged annual rate of around +0.5 mm/yr, half the rate recorded at Brest and less than one third the global rate claimed by the IPCC."
Brest is anomalous to general ocean levels. Typical IPCC strategy. Take an anomaly and extrapolate.

We need to know. What do we need to know?
Regarding fast-moving ice sheets, the 2007 IPCC reports on the inconvenient truth come at an inconvenient time: after the concerns arose, but before the scientific community figured out what to make of the recent observations.

>>>> We need to know the truth. The truth is, not enough is known to form anything but speculative opinion much less enough to justify draconian policies.

So what comes next? "It sounds self-serving, but we need a continuous set of measurements," says Davis of the University of Missouri. Understanding climate requires a long-term approach, which relies on tenacious data gathering. "We need to continue, otherwise we will lose our observational evidence of what is going on."
>>>> It is self serving. How many billions this time? Global warming stopped, why is there need for haste? One measurement in midsummer and one in midwinter is enough.

Alley also stresses the need for better computer models. Many of the processes that affect ice sheets -- indeed the ice sheets themselves -- are absent from the computer models used to forecast the effects of global warming, he says. "If you worry about how much heat the ocean takes under an ice shelf, well, global computer models do not have an ice shelf. There are places where people do not know how deep the water is, so it's hard to write the equations."
>>>> An unprovoked admission of the inadequacy of present virtual reality programs and PCs. The actual quality is not a problem. It is improving certainly. What is a problem is the generated rhetoric based on false assumption leading to punitive and unfair extraction of money from the public purse by the climatic community.

An even more severe data void concerns the bottom of the ice sheet, certainly one of the more remote places on Earth. "Is the bottom smooth, bumpy, or muddy?" Alley asks. Bumpy bottoms would be less subject to the water lubrication issue we've noted, but "I dunno" is the only realistic answer to these questions.
>>>> Irrelevant nonsense. Except for the margins, both caps lie in depressions. To answer his question, sheet ice is believed to leave the surface topography depressed but otherwise unchanged. Earth heat causes higher basal temperatures. This can produce water that is forced by the weight on it into the ground and/or into the ice, and moulins. At depths of 10,000 feet, the weight of the ice is some 30 tons per square foot.

Vast areas are flooded, especially around Washington, Philadelphia, and Boston
[Image] Roll mouse over image to see Northeast U.S. coastline after a 6-meter rise in sea level - roughly what would occur if the entire Greenland ice cap tumbled into the ocean. If and when this will happen is an open question; the world's experts don't know. It won't happen tomorrow. Maps: Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizona

>>>> Can we have a roll-over image for the addition of water from Uranus?

Tell it to the computer
If ice sheets have such a major influence on sea level, and hence on coastal flooding, then computer modelers may need some help, Alley says. "If you look at the few ice-flow modelers, they are typing their fingers raw trying to get the code right. Putting a two-mile thick, one-continent wide ice sheet in a model is not an easy thing."

>>>> The ice cover, 1.5 miles thick on average (getting the numbers right would be a good start) is almost 3 miles thick in places.

The evolution of climate models that link ocean and atmosphere over the past couple of decades is a source of optimism, Alley says. "We have seen remarkable success of the coupled climate models. They are not perfect, but they are really good. We can see how that kind of progress would be made on ice sheets... but the community of people that put ice sheets into computer models and make them jump is small compared to the ones working on coupled atmosphere-ocean models."
>>>> 50% accurate occasionally. When you have so many models and projections, the occasional accidental match is inevitable. The attempts to predict future climate by weak guesswork and weaker assumption is not a good base for policy to be associated with.

In five years, Alley says, "We could start putting good limits on sea-level rise, but to say we have it nailed will take longer. I don't know how much longer."
>>>> Especially if La Nina persists. Contracting seas, falling levels, record sea ice, what is a poor propagandist to do? Cooling water may overcome evaporation loss seen in the Indian Ocean. Watch out Tuvalu, rising seas due to cooling water may be coming to get you. Nothing to do with human effects though so keep your fingers out of our wallets.
Do ice shelves in fact contribute to ocean warming? When they break up into icebergs, they carry their cooling influence away from the coast where the ice shelf reforms. So we end up with around double the original ice for a few years. Have the Larsons contributed to cooling the southern hemi? In fact the icebergs’ melting probably balances shelf growth. Earth is like that. Glaciation doesn’t appear to be biomass’ preferred condition.

Recent alarmism about quakes from glaciers is just fake alarm. Stick-slip quakes are a feature of the ice caps and there has been no noticeable increase in recent times.

Your article (Melting icecap triggering earthquakes, September 8) is misleading and alarmist. As a climatologist/seismologist working on glacial seismic activity in the Jakobshavn glacier basin - precisely the area your reporter mentions - I know that local earthquakes (or glacial quakes) are actually fairly common in the area and have been for a long time.
I also know that there is no evidence to suggest that these quakes "are happening far faster than ever anticipated" in the region, as Dr Corell of the global change programme at Washington's Heinz Centre is quoted as saying.
The Guardian
No more ketchup money for him then?
Merriam Webster:
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also: a public action having such an effect
Alarmism; the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger

The things they said. (People haters, mostly.)

In 1992, Newsweek journalist Gregg Easterbrook reported in The New Republic ("Green Cassandras," July 6) that Albert Gore and biologist Paul Ehrlich, author of the thoroughly discredited book The Population Bomb, had "ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore's words, undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult Actions we must soon take."
They were too successful in their malfeasance.

Part of insanity is believing your view of the world is real despite logic and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I like to think I’m on the healthy side. Any serious errors in the counterclaims, please advise me and I’ll amend. Clothcap4atyahoodotcom. Worthwhile observations will be added below.

For Jim.
Glacial sedimentary evidence supporting stick-slip basal ice flow

Russia Warns of Emergency as Siberian Temperatures Dip to -55C

Man made Antarctic Melting, Indeed

Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet

On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC’s Approach to Global Warming Research

Climate Change 2001: The Alarmist Basis (IPCC wg1)

IPCC - nobell award for alarmism - site

Enough already. :-)

zzz Any unassigned info is my opinion based on my research.