1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/w...s-melted-in-25-years-scientists-say.html?_r=0
Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.

Here is another example of global warming. For some of you I know, no proof of mankind. Well if it isn't mankind what other data is there to show for the massive melt.

 

Thank GOODNESS! Glad to see we are still in an interglacial...I hope we stay here, for a LONG TIME.

Please explain how you delude this is NOT part of the "natural balance of nature"

WHat is the "ideal mean temperature" , and the "correct amount of ice cover"?


"MASSIVE MELT"???

Please.... let me know when the new Great Lakes are being formed somewhere, and I'll agree to the "massive melt" nonsense..

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......what a completely clueless comment.....when "ice that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years", just what delusional "natural balance of nature" are you imagining is in operation there???

 

We could build a gigantic rocket full of water and douse part of the sun to cool it off.

 

Oh my------------------that fact is going to confuse the global warming loons!!!!! Note the fact that the piece said tha 6000 year old plus plants were exposed. For the low information and generally ignorant liberals, that means that there was a natural warm up back then. Real facts always gets their underlovlies in a bunch!!!

 

From the OP article:

How do they go from that to "Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday"?

 

Imperica data suggests the temperature went up. Who knew that would cause ice to melt? Anthropomorphic Global Warming is bovine scat.

 

I think that progressives who believe it is entirely man-made should go Amish. They could completely eliminate their own carbon footprint and save the planet.

 

As usual, it is the denier cult "loons" who are confused. The existence of the Holocene Thermal Maximum after the end of the last period of glaciation is well known to everyone who actually knows anything about the Earth's climate history. Too bad you're so ignorant that you imagine that this comes as a surprise to anyone.

Mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum
Global Climate Change Org.
Although remnants of the Laurentide Ice Sheet did not disappear until about 7 Ka, the early to mid-Holocene (4,500 to 10,000 years) has often been considered to have been warmer than the last 4,500 years. A thermal maximum occurred at about 6 to 7 Ka (Figure 5.18 ). Conclusions about the mid Holocene warmth are based on several lines of evidence - latitudinal displacements of vegetation zones (Ritchie et al., 1983) and vertical displacements of mountain glaciers (Porter & Orombelli, 1985).

 

But they won't. Reverend ManBearPig aka Al Goreleone won't, so why should they?

 

So we get to choose from:
1) It's not really warming up
2) It's normal, so people had nothing to do with it
3) It got warmer in the distant past, therefore people aren't involved today
4) It's a liberal conspiracy backed by money

These aren't mutually exclusive. You can pick ALL of them and feel good.

 

Hey! The US met its Kyoto reduction target in 2012.


Now Americans can ignore this until the rest of the world bestirs itself to catch up.

 

That is described pretty well in the article. How could you miss it?

In Sign of Warming, 1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years
The New York Times
(excerpts)
Of greater immediate interest, Dr. Thompson and his team have expanded on previous research involving long-dead plants emerging from the melting ice at the edge of Quelccaya, a huge, flat ice cap sitting on a volcanic plain 18,000 feet above sea level. Several years ago, the team reported on plants that had been exposed near a meltwater lake. Chemical analysis showed them to be about 4,700 years old, proving that the ice cap had reached its smallest extent in nearly five millenniums. In the new research, a thousand feet of additional melting has exposed plants that laboratory analysis shows to be about 6,300 years old. The simplest interpretation, Dr. Thompson said, is that ice that accumulated over approximately 1,600 years melted back in no more than 25 years. “If any time in the last 6,000 years these plants had been exposed for any five-year period, they would have decayed”, Dr. Thompson said. “That tells us the ice cap had to be there 6,000 years ago”.

 

The ice cube in my soda, the cube which had been in my fridge for weeks, is now melting in a matter of 10 minutes.

I'm gonna call 911.

 

Well, that's what happens to ice when it gets warmer - it melts. Just like most of the world's mountain glaciers are melting because of anthropogenic global warming.

 

Yeah. OK.

 

Geez. Look at what you have gone and done to the warmista heads ............. someone has to clean this up !!



- - - Updated - - -

Geez. Look at what you have gone and done to the warmista heads ............. someone has to clean this up !!

 

Should we get a tourniquet for the blood loss the Liberals just suffered?

 

Nope. You failed miserably at comprehending what was being said.

Less. Quite a bit less, actually.

Well, I'm sorry to debunk your faith in the misinformation and lies that your little astroturfed cult of AGW denial feeds you but that is total baloney. The science definitely supports AGW, as should be obvious from the fact that virtually the entire world scientific community affirms the reality of AGW as the cause of the current warming trend. It is only in the propaganda filled, pseudo-science world of the denier cultists that there is any doubt about that fact.

You make fraudulent claims about what the NGS says about sea levels and of course you fail to provide any supporting links or citations, as is so very typical of denier cultists.

The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) is part of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA). If you go to the NGS home page and search for 'sea levels', you come to this page.

Variations in Sea Level
National Geodetic Survey - NOAA
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
Tide gauges around the Chesapeake Bay indicate that the relative sea level in the Bay is rising at twice the average global rate of 1.8 mm per year [Douglas, 1991]. Such rates point to both shore erosion and marshland pond development as likely factors in wetlands loss around the Bay.

For the last century, the global level of the sea appears to have risen at an average rate of nearly two mm/yr. However, in any given region, the apparent rate of rise can vary considerably from the long term global value. Geographical and temporal variations from the long-term mean value occur from a variety of causes such as interdecadal fluctuations of ocean density and circulation, continuing isostatic adjustment of the land level from the last deglaciation, subsidence due to the extraction of underground fluids, and others.

The interval 1930-1990 is long enough at 60 years to establish that the middle Atlantic region has a systematically higher rate of sea level rise than the long term global average of nearly 2 mm per year. The approximately 1.5 mm/yr extra rise for the region comes from a general sinking of the area into the ocean. Postglacial rebound, that is, readjustment (sinking in this area) of land elevations since the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age, is the cause. The overall global rise of sea level adds to the effect of land subsidence in the Chesapeake area to produce an unusually high rate of long-term local sea level rise relative to the global average.

The period 1970-1990 tells a very different story. The sinking of the land from postglacial rebound is still going on, but the regional ocean circulation and density structure has produced a temporary fall of sea level in the zone that has entirely offset the effect of the subsidence due to postglacial rebound. Thus for now, the net change of sea level in the middle Atlantic area is zero. Of course this situation will not last. The nearby ocean will inevitably recover, and even overshoot, its long term rate of sea level rise in the area, producing at some time in the future (probably in the next few decades) a rate of rise that exceeds the long term average rate for the region.


Sea level is rising at an increasing rate
NOAA
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

 

So the "consensus among climatologists" has now become "virtually the entire world scientific community"?

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

No consensus eh?

 

Are you also saying that "virtually the entire world scientific community affirms the reality of AGW as the cause of the current warming trend"??

 

I'm sure that the people in Minnesota are glad that those 300 foot thick glaciers melted in Minneapolis.
http://www.minnehahacreek.org/compr...-creek-watershed-district-comprehensive-wa--3

 

LOLOLOLOL....are you really naive enough to imagine that no one but you is aware that ice sheets covered a large part of North America during the last 'ice age' or period of glaciation? The orbital cycles that caused the end of the last 'ice age' are not happening now, nor are they causing the current warming trend, so what's your point?

What is being talked about here is the current rapid loss of ice mass in most of the mountain glaciers all around the world, including the total disappearance of some glaciers. This current melt off is not being caused by the same natural factors that caused the melting of enormous quantities of ice at the end of the last 'ice age'. It is being caused by the huge build up of powerful greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFC's) in the Earth's atmosphere that has resulted from mankind's activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, industrial activities, and deforestation.