The New York Times reports how land is rising from the sea around Juneau and that this is due to glaciers melting. Whatever the relationships between these various phenomena – temperature data from NASA GISS – NCDC and University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite data for the lower troposphere – all point to there being no significant warming in the Juneau 2.5 degree grid box over 109 years 1900-2008.
Notes on the data – the GISS warm anomalies post the mid-1990’s look too warm compared to the other two datasets and the surface warmth in 1981 was not found in the lower troposphere. You would need to examine all available surface data to resolve the last 30 years better. As usual when T data are examined closely, you find problems.
OK, a true (not rhetorical) question: If there’s no warming in that area, why is the ice in that area melting?
Possibilities include that there’s warming just outside the area measured (either horizontally or vertically) that still affects the ice; that there’s warming that’s sufficient to melt the ice but not to register in the measurements; or that the melting of nearby ice, for instance through water flows, causes the ice “in the box” to melt without appreciably warming the area as a whole.
Are there other possibilities? Of the possibilities, which is/are most likely to be correct?
Cheers,
Bud
The article say the glaciers are retreating 30 ft or more per year. This could be due to less precipitation in glacier catchments, less snowpack. I do not have those data, maybe some reader can comment. Any glacier will be melting at its snout, that is why the glacier ends where it does at any particular time. I have written to the journalist – we will see if that brings out any more data.
“If there’s no warming in that area, why is the ice in that area melting? ”
—————-
Why not ? All that can be said is the cause is NOT warming. If it’s not a cat, it has not to be a dog. It can be more insolation, black carbon, oceanic cycles, Al Gore’s hot air, Mother Earth’s menopause, whatever, who knows ?
The pretense to know of climate science for everything about climate is simple arrogance and lack of ethics.
The interesting features in Alaskan data (not just Juneau) are the clear ‘steps’ in the data in the ~1940s and ~1970s which, of course, closely match the PDO shifts. Given Alaska’s position with respect to the North Pacific, this makes perfect. If PDO has genuinely shifted to a negative phase, then Alaska should be the “canary in the coalmine”.
Any solar signal is clearly absent.
Let’s see. The Younger Dryas ‘Ice Age’ ended about 11,500 years ago. At 30 feet per year, the glaciers would have retreated about 65 miles since then – from about where Cross Sound meets the Pacific Ocean.
“If there’s no warming in that area, why is the ice in that area melting? ”
—————————————————————————-
Water undergoing phase change from solid to liquid does not increase in temperature during the phase change – this is well known. It is possible, therefore, to add energy to an ice cube and melt it without raising the temperature of the water – temperature does not equal heat-content in this case.
What works with an ice-cube may work with a glacier – adding enough heat to melt the glacier and – while it’s melting – not have any additional “warming” of the glacier.
The question is, are these temperature measurements being affected by these glaciers, and are they close enough to absorb the “heat” that would cause the temperature to rise?