Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier Retreat Scaremongering
    By Patrick Lockerby | July 23rd 2010 05:36 PM | 18 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Patrick

    Retired engineer, 60+ years young. Computer builder and programmer. Linguist specialising in language acquisition and computational linguistics....

    View Patrick's Profile
    Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier Retreat Scaremongering

    A guest post by my friend Lai Ying at the Greenwich Institute of Toxicology.

    Global warming is a get-rich-quick scam invented by Al Gore when he was cold and hungry, sleeping in a doorway and penniless.  Stories that Al Gore was rich before he invented the CO2 scam are lies propagated by his cronies and acolytes.

    That being so, it follows that all "evidence" in support of the global warming THEORY has either been faked or is the outcome of self-delusion by warmist agendists.

    The warmist agendist imperialists and their lackeys are trying to convince the world that Greenland's ice sheet is melting.  Common sense tells us that if the ice sheet was melting then the sea would be cold all around Greenland from the water running off.  Instead, these agendists tell us, the sea is warmer than it should be which is why the ice is melting.  So: the warmer water is melting the ice and the water is running off and raising sea levels because the cold water gets warmer and expands?  That's just crazy, but if it's true it's just a natural cycle.

    The GRACE satellite sent up at enormous cost to the ordinary taxpayer was a complete waste of money.  Why waste money trying to prove that the ice is melting when any fool can see that it isn't melting.    All you have to do is go stand in the middle of the ice sheet and watch it not melting.  The interpretations of GRACE gravity anomaly data must be flawed.  We can prove that FACT by just looking at one out-of-date satellite image of a bit of Jakobshavn Fjord.

    Out of date image courtesy Wikipedia

    You can see at a glance that this so-called glacier retreat is just an advance of open water towards the land.

    If we figure out how much ice melted between when the retreat started and when it stopped - 1851 - 2006 then all that melting ice should show up in sea level trends.  It doesn't, and I defy those warmist-agendist so-called "scientists" to explain that FACT away.

    The Arctic isn't melting, Greenland's ice sheet isn't melting and sea levels aren't rising.  I'm only presenting these FACTS as a public service so that you aren't fooled into paying higher taxes to build flood defenses for places like New Orleans and New York.

    Sea levels aren't rising anywhere.  In England they had a flood in 1953.  Big deal!  These things happen once in a while.  It's natural variation.  Despite the advice of rationalists like me the government did the typical knee-jerk political thing and hastily rushed through a scheme to build a flood barrier for London.  Check the newpapers and internet archives.  Sea levels didn't rise and London wasn't ever flooded.  If you visit London, go see the Thames Barrier.   The high water marks on the barrier are nowhere to be seen upstream.  This proves that when the barrier is closed it makes the water pile up so as to look threatening.   Propagandists then post pictures of how the barrier has "saved London from flooding", so can we please have a few more millions in taxpayer's money for more "climate research".

    Thames barrier with fake high-water marks caused by barrier closures.

    Britain has wasted millions in taxes on flood defenses all around its coast, just because of warmist agendist scare-mongering. 

    Don't let America make the same mistake. 

    Say "NO" to glabal worming!

    Say "NO" to sea-level rise!
    Say "NO" to flood barriers!

    That's all I have time for, folks.  I have to rush off to another blog and write about those lunatics who are making windmills and solar panels.

    Lai Ying, G.I.T.


    Nice, appearing to be "tongue in cheek" essay about, Greenland, Al Gore, Thames Barrier, etc.
    By the way, fresh water just above 0 degrees Celsius continues to contract and occupies less volume as it warms until it reaches about 4 degrees Celsius. I assume salt water behaves similarly. Above 4 degrees C. water will expand as it warms.
    Greenland air temperatures as reported by have been exceptionally warm for nearly the past year reaching near record levels on a number of days especially along the southwest coast of Greenland. It seems only logical that meltwater falling to the bottom of the icecap would not only lubricate the substrate but exert tremendous lateral pressure on the ice as the water depth increases.

    Nicely observed, Vaughn A.  Definitely glacier ice-tongue in cheek!  :-)

    You are right about the fresh-water and max density at 4oC.  The case for seawater is different: its max density and freezing point both occur at around minus 1.9oC.  Meltwater tends to float on top of seawater until mixed by the action of waves, wind, or by thumping great icebergs toppling over.
    Edit: missing minus corrected, see comment below.
    It seems only logical that meltwater falling to the bottom of the icecap would not only lubricate the substrate but exert tremendous lateral pressure on the ice as the water depth increases.

    Hydraulic pressure can lift the ice off its bed causing a relatively brief acceleration in the rate of flow of a stream.  However the full calving mechanism is quite complex and there remain many unknowns.  You may find these links of interest:



    In case you - or other readers of this spoof - are new to my blog, here is a list of just some of my (genuine) articles on climate which may be of interest:
    The ChatterBox Arctic Index
    its max density and freezing point both occur at around 1.9°C.
    ¿Qué? Shouldn't the salt depress the freezing point of seawater?

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Mi 'amster, she eat the minus sign.  Mi blog, she is Fawlty.  Rats!

    Apologies for the unforgivable error, and thanks Robert.

    That's MINUS 1.9oC !!!
    Mi 'amster, she eat the minus sign.
    No wonder Hedgehog Forces are getting overstretched!  First there's all-night bingeing going on outside slug pubs, now there are these rodent terrorists stirred up by Abu Hamster videos.
    Abu Hamster may be a seeker after world domination, but he plays a mean Toccata and Fugue in D Minor on the mouse-organ.
    Really ENTERTAINING! hahaha
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Patrick, thanks for the correction on the expansion of seawater. I had previously researched water temperature/expansion tables but I had never found any that were specifically related to seawater. I'll check out the links you posted to my comment.

    Thanks again.

    You are more than welcome, Vaughn.

    A point of general interest: a boundary zone across which water properties change abruptly is called a cline.

    Clines are named for the principle property of interest, e.g. :

    pycnocline - density;
    thermocline - temperature;
    halocline - salinity.
    Update: exclusive!

    In a desperate knee-jerk reaction to rumours of possible climate change leading to maybe a little more water coming into the Thames Estuary once in a while, the Thames Barrier visitor's picnic area is to be moved upslope at a cost of GBP 7.3 million.  I bet this was at the behest of the Health and Safety executive in case some wimpy tourist catches cold from damp feet.

    Full story:
    Going back to the first point by Vaughn the meltwater lubrication remains very much of secondary importance to the acceleration of these outlet glaciers. The amount of meltwater at the base of the Jakobshavn has not been in short supply for sometime. Our work on that glacier in the 1980's indicated there was plenty even in winter. This glacier does not vary speed in its lowest reaches in the winter indicating that meltwater is not driving it nor the other main outlet glaciers. Where there is not a calving front and further inland yes the meltwater has significant short term effects.

    Patrick, I just read this on MSNBC:

    But that's not all. On July 12 there was a new large crack discovered in the glacier's southern limb as well. Whether that means another gigantic release of ice or not remains to be seen.
    Thanks for all the comments, friends.  I hope you don't mind if I combine my replies to save a lot of typing.

    I was surprised that this bit of 'me letting off steam' has attracted serious comments.  Surprised, but grateful that my mad moment isn't contagious.  :-)

    I saw an article - which I won't link and send traffic to - which cherry-picked the above out-of-date Wikimedia image of Jakobshavn calving and used it with a few red herrings and straw men to 'prove' that the Greenland ice sheet isn't losing mass.

    Neven:  thanks for the link - trust the media to get the new story about a bit of smoke after the ashes have blown away.  I'd love to see a good hi-res image of Jakobshavn Glacier Second Calving.  Meanwhile, I'll have to make do with blinking 250m resolution. :-)

    Jakobshavn calving front July 2010.

    Mauri: thanks again for your input.  I hope to be writing about mass balance and sea level soon, and I'll be sure to take your points on board and link to your articles, such as:
    Now that you have me blinking in unison with the image above, what are the dates of the snowy image? Just to give you perspective on where our knowledge was 20 years ago here is a link to our paper on Jakobshavn Since it was in relative equilibrium in the that period of the mid-1980's the story is much different from today in a recent draft paper

    Mauri: the blink comparator uses MODIS Rapidfire images from March 08 and July 19 2010:

    Thanks for the links to the papers.  They will help fill in some gaps in my knowledge.  I have just been reading Recent Changes on Greenland Outlet Glaciers, R. Thomas et. al.

    I'm looking for factors which might reliably predict major calving events.  For example, the J North calving created a major surge in the fjord.  Considering what was visible as surface motion in the satellite images there must have been a major underwater pulse.

    It is not widely known that a moving water-displacing body can project a significant underwater forefoot.  A freighter once broke free of its moorings in the Suez canal due to the approach at excessive speed of an aircraft carrier 4 miles away.  If a mere ship can do that, I supposed that the pulse from the massive J North calving would have had a significant shock effect on J South, and so I was watching daily for any sign of calving.

    Subject to independent confirmation I think the winter / summer blink comparison clearly shows that J South has lost a substantial amount of ice.  However, there is no proof that the surge of water brought forward an impending calving.
    About 2 or 3 years ago I read a very interesting study about dropping a cubic yard of concrete into a wave pool at various rates. The researchers mentioned that even they were surprised at the size of the waves generated. I looked for but was unable to find any current online published information about this research. Maybe somebody else will have greater success.
    Oregon State University has done considerable research which may be of interest too.

    Vaughn: thanks for that.  I was trying to remember where I'd seen videos of a model landslide-generated tsunami.  It was an O.S.U. model featured in a TV broadcast.

    Here are some views of that landslide-generated tsunami model test, followed by amateur footage of a calving-generated tsunami in Greenland.

    View of gravel drop:

    End-on underwater view of wave.

    Side view of gravel drop.


    Greenland calving-generated tsunami.

    More earthquake and tsunami-related videos:
    Patrick, Yes that's it. The gravel was such a pain to remove from the pool I believe they went to a slab of concrete on a ramp to easily repeat the test any number of times and at different fall rates.
    Excellent video of the small tsunami in Greenland...I hadn't seen that one before.