Still Waters Posted September 5, 2011 #1 Share Posted September 5, 2011 New pictures have revealed the extent to which a huge glacier in northern Greenland has broken up in just two years, claims a glaciologist.Dr Alun Hubbard of Aberystwyth University said he was "gob-smacked" by the scale of the Petermann Glacier's break-up since he last visited in 2009. The glacier is 186 miles (300km) long and 3,280ft (1000m) high - over three times the height of the Eiffel Tower. Last year, it shed a piece of ice measuring 77 square miles (200 sq km). Dr Hubbard has been researching the Greenland ice sheet for some years. Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted September 5, 2011 #2 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Somethings not right at the photo, the top one shows a cliff on the right but at the bottom photo there is no cliff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted September 5, 2011 #3 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Hmmmmm, anyone notice something missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Bismarck Posted September 5, 2011 #4 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Hmmmmm, anyone notice something missing? Only ice, nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 5, 2011 #5 Share Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) Somethings not right at the photo, the top one shows a cliff on the right but at the bottom photo there is no cliff? Do you think they might have been taken in different places? The glacier is only 186 miles long, after all. And from a plane? You couldn't take a picture in the same place as a previous one if you tried. Doug Edited September 5, 2011 by Doug1029 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Bismarck Posted September 5, 2011 #6 Share Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) The picture is taken from the same location. The reason why it dosn't look the same, is due to shadows and the suns position(and less ice). The first pic was taken in clear weather, the second you see overcast. Edited September 5, 2011 by BFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encouraged Posted September 5, 2011 #7 Share Posted September 5, 2011 The picture is taken from the same location. The reason why it dosn't look the same, is due to shadows and the suns position(and less ice). The first pic was taken in clear weather, the second you see overcast. Also, the shade, which seems to be the shadow of a mountain to the photographer's back, gives the appearance of the location not being the same. But a good point to point inspection of shows a lot of same points that speak of it being taken from the same viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 5, 2011 #8 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Also, the shade, which seems to be the shadow of a mountain to the photographer's back, gives the appearance of the location not being the same. But a good point to point inspection of shows a lot of same points that speak of it being taken from the same viewpoint. OK. OK. I surrender! If you check the ravines in the cliff face, you can match them up in the two photos. It's the same location. And you can see ravines in both cliff faces. So we don't have a disappearing cliff after all. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encouraged Posted September 5, 2011 #9 Share Posted September 5, 2011 OK. OK. I surrender! If you check the ravines in the cliff face, you can match them up in the two photos. It's the same location. And you can see ravines in both cliff faces. So we don't have a disappearing cliff after all. Doug Shadows can do strange things to photos. Also, automatic exposures are typically based accumulated light collected to make a satisfactory exposure. Thus, taking a person's photo in front of a daylight lit up window yields mostly an underexposed person and an overexposed window. Outdoors the more sky you get in a photo the darker the rest of it will be because of the need for the photo to only allow so much light through. Glad you took a second look! Terrible how the glaciers are melting so fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted September 5, 2011 #10 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Im surprised no one has pointed out that the photos show sea ice and not a glacier 3 x the hieght of the eiffel tower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2011 #11 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Im surprised no one has pointed out that the photos show sea ice and not a glacier 3 x the hieght of the eiffel tower A frozen river valley is a glacier, though without more information I would not dismiss your statement out of hand. If the Ice has previously had a stable ice front which has significantly retreated - then this is indeed a significant event. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted September 5, 2011 #12 Share Posted September 5, 2011 A frozen river valley is a glacier, though without more information I would not dismiss your statement out of hand. If the Ice has previously had a stable ice front which has significantly retreated - then this is indeed a significant event. Br Cornelius I agree with you totally. But the article clearly states a glacier 3 x the height of the eiffel tower has broken up. The photos provided do not match the claims. I have always questioned BBC reports since their report on Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035. To be fair, they got that detail from the IPCC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Posted September 6, 2011 #13 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I've heard first hand some interesting information about the Ice melting debacle. This was 3 years ago, before I became interested in some of these crazy 'conspiracy' theories. So I was a believer of climate change at the time, poorly uninformed that I was. While working for a survey company in the Arctic, we met a ship with scientists who were studying the ice melting situation. We invited them onto our ship, since their ship was more like a boat and their chef was more like...well, not a chef. Over the table they used alot of words I was unfamiliar with, but I did ask when we can expect the sea levels to rise & by how much. They laughed and said...nothing more than the usual. When I asked why that was if all the ice was melting, they simply said. Yes It is all melting, but on one side. Ice on the other side is being formed at the same rate. What kind of benefit would there be for a government to cherry pick what information it provides the public. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Bismarck Posted September 6, 2011 #14 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Im surprised no one has pointed out that the photos show sea ice and not a glacier 3 x the hieght of the eiffel tower There's three types of glaciers. Mountain glaciers, continental glaciers, and sea ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27vet Posted September 6, 2011 #15 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) I can't see the article, they have moved it off the main page. Found. But isn't that what glaciers are supposed to do? Edited September 6, 2011 by 27vet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2011 #16 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I can't see the article, they have moved it off the main page. Found. But isn't that what glaciers are supposed to do? Glaciers tend to remain fairly stable for centuries. If they suddenly change in years/decades then something has dramatically changed in their environment which needs accounting for. It is very true that glacial retreat is taking place in many parts of the world for the first time in many many centuries. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted September 6, 2011 #17 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I've heard first hand some interesting information about the Ice melting debacle. This was 3 years ago, before I became interested in some of these crazy 'conspiracy' theories. So I was a believer of climate change at the time, poorly uninformed that I was. While working for a survey company in the Arctic, we met a ship with scientists who were studying the ice melting situation. We invited them onto our ship, since their ship was more like a boat and their chef was more like...well, not a chef. Over the table they used alot of words I was unfamiliar with, but I did ask when we can expect the sea levels to rise & by how much. They laughed and said...nothing more than the usual. When I asked why that was if all the ice was melting, they simply said. Yes It is all melting, but on one side. Ice on the other side is being formed at the same rate. What kind of benefit would there be for a government to cherry pick what information it provides the public. =/ Charging more for fuel, electricity and gas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skookum Posted September 6, 2011 #18 Share Posted September 6, 2011 As stated before he is shocked by the glacier breaking up, but I am far more interested in the rocks on the right hand side disappearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenfahr Posted September 6, 2011 #19 Share Posted September 6, 2011 As stated before he is shocked by the glacier breaking up, but I am far more interested in the rocks on the right hand side disappearing. Then you are completely missing the point. good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 6, 2011 #20 Share Posted September 6, 2011 While working for a survey company in the Arctic, we met a ship with scientists who were studying the ice melting situation. We invited them onto our ship, since their ship was more like a boat and their chef was more like...well, not a chef. Over the table they used alot of words I was unfamiliar with, but I did ask when we can expect the sea levels to rise & by how much. They laughed and said...nothing more than the usual. When I asked why that was if all the ice was melting, they simply said. Yes It is all melting, but on one side. Ice on the other side is being formed at the same rate. What kind of benefit would there be for a government to cherry pick what information it provides the public. =/ Try this: take a glass of warm water and gently place an ice cube in it. Note the water level. Then note it again when the ice has melted. By how much did it change? When floating ice melts, the water level doesn't change at all. It's when ice on land (glacial ice) melts that oceans start to rise. And melting ice isn't the only cause of sea level rise. There's also expansion of the water as the ocean warms. So how much are ocean levels rising by? Currently about 0.07 cm per year. On the coast of Maine, with its steep cliffs, that means almost nothing. On the shore of Bangladesh that is almost flat, that means about 2.27 feet of land per year lost to the sea. In 30 years, that's an acre of land for every 208.7 feet of coast. What can we do with that? One-half acre grows enough grain to feed a person. 500 feet of coast would feed a family. And that's in an area that can ill-afford the loss. And what does that mean? Refugees. When your livelihood vanishes, you move - generally to someplace you're not wanted. We'll call them economic refugees, of course, so we don't have to admit we might have done something about it when we still could have. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanthurion2 Posted September 6, 2011 #21 Share Posted September 6, 2011 global warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encouraged Posted September 7, 2011 #22 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Was he saying that its length was 3 x the height of the tower OR its height? The height could still be 3 x the tower's height if it is all below the Earth's surface. Can the top of a glacier be nearly level with the Earth's surface and heaps of it under that level like a floating glacier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptozological Mascot Posted September 7, 2011 #23 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Gob-smacked? Oh man, I thought it said "Gob Stopper." Now I want candy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now