
New research shows temperate glacier ice flows more steadily than previously thought, leading to lower projections of sea-level rise.
Neal Iverson started with two lessons in ice physics when asked to describe a research paper about glacier ice flow that has just been published by the journal Science.
First, said the distinguished professor emeritus of Iowa State University’s Department of the Earth, Atmosphere, and Climate, there are different types of ice within glaciers. Parts of glaciers are at their pressure-melting temperature and are soft and watery.
That temperate ice is like an ice cube left on a kitchen counter, with meltwater pooling between the ice and the countertop, he said. Temperate ice has been difficult to study and characterize.
Second, other parts of glaciers have cold, hard ice, like an ice cube still in the freezer. This is the kind of ice that has typically been studied and used as the basis of glacier flow models and forecasts.
The new research paper deals with the former, said Iverson, a paper co-author and project supervisor.

The paper describes lab experiments and the resulting data that suggest a standard value within the “empirical foundation of glacier flow modeling” – an equation known as Glen’s flow law, named after the late John W. Glen, a British ice physicist – should be changed for temperate ice.
The new value when used in the flow law “will tend to predict increases in flow velocity that are much smaller in response to increased stresses caused by ice sheet shrinkage as the climate warms,” Iverson said. That would mean models will show less glacier flow into oceans and project less sea-level rise.
An acute need to account for warm glacier ice
Open the walk-in freezer in Iverson’s campus lab and you’re looking at a 9-foot-tall ring-shear device that’s been simulating glacial forces and movement since 2009. It was built with a $530,000 grant from the National Science Foundation. The current study was also supported by NSF grants.
At the center of the device is a ring of ice about 3 feet across and 7 inches thick. Below the ring is a hydraulic press that can put as much as 100 tons of force on the ice and simulate the weight of a glacier 800 feet thick. The ice ring is surrounded by a tub of circulating fluid that regulates the ice temperature to the nearest hundredth of a degree. Electric motors attached to a plate with grippers above the ice ring can rotate the ice at speeds of 1 to 10,000 feet per year.
For this project, researchers modified the device by adding another gripper to the bottom of the ice ring so that rotation of the upper gripper shears the underlying ice.
Collin Schohn, a former master’s degree student at Iowa State who’s now a geologist with the BBJ Group based in Chicago and is the first author of the group’s latest research paper, ran a series of six experiments using the modified device, each experiment lasting about six weeks. The experiments included measurements of the ice’s liquid water content, something that hadn’t been done in these kinds of experiments since the 1970s.

“These experiments involved deforming the ice at its melting temperatures and at various stresses,” Schohn said.
Iverson likened the experiments to grabbing a bagel at the top and the bottom, then twisting the two halves to smear the cream cheese in the middle.
The experimental data showed that ice deformed at a speed that was linearly proportional to the stress, Iverson said. Traditional thinking would have researchers expecting ice to soften with increasing stress, so increments in stress would cause increasingly large increments in speed.
Why does all this matter?
Ice is temperate near the bottoms and edges of the fastest-flowing parts of ice sheets and in fast-flowing mountain glaciers, both of which shed ice into oceans and influence sea level. “The need to model and forecast accurately the flow of warm glacier ice is, therefore, acute,” the authors wrote.
Resetting n to 1.0
Glen’s flow law is written as: ε ̇ = Aτn.
The equation relates the stress on ice, τ, to its rate of deformation, ε ̇, where A is a constant for a particular ice temperature. Results of the new experiments show that the value of the stress exponent, n, is 1.0 rather than the usually assigned value of 3 or 4.
The authors wrote, “For generations, based on Glen’s original experiments and many subsequent experiments mostly on cold ice (-2 degrees C and colder), the value of the stress exponent n in models has been taken to be 3.0.” (They also wrote that other studies of the “cold ice of ice sheets” have placed n higher yet, at 4.0.)
That was, in part, “because experiments with ice at the pressure melting temperature are a challenge,” said Lucas Zoet, a paper co-author, a former postdoctoral research associate at Iowa State and the Dean L. Morgridge Associate Professor of geoscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Zoet, a co-supervisor of the project, has built a slightly smaller version of the ring-shear device with transparent walls for his laboratory.
But data from the large-scale, shear-deformation experiments in Iverson’s lab raised questions about the assigned value for n. Temperate ice is linear-viscous (n = 1.0) “over common ranges of liquid water content and stress expected near glacier beds and in ice stream margins,” the authors wrote.
They proposed that the cause is melting and refreezing along the boundaries of individual, millimeter-to-centimeter scale grains of ice, which should occur at rates linearly proportional to the stress.
These new data allow modelers “to base their ice sheet models on physical relationships demonstrated in the laboratory,” Zoet said. “Improving that understanding improves the accuracy of predictions.”
It took some perseverance to get the data supporting the new value of n.
“We had been batting this project around for years,” Schohn said. “It was really hard to get this to work.”
In the end, Iverson said, “Considering all the failures and development, this was about a 10-year process.”
A long process, the researchers said, that’s essential for more accurate models of temperate glacier ice and better predictions of glacier flow and sea-level rise.
Reference: “Linear-viscous flow of temperate ice” by Collin M. Schohn, Neal R. Iverson, Lucas K. Zoet, Jacob R. Fowler and Natasha Morgan-Witts, 9 January 2025, Science.
DOI: 10.1126/science.adp7708
The study was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
90 Comments
So we can pollute More now. Woo hoo. Burn baby, burn 👍
This is a good news bad news situation for you climate cultists. I’ve got wonderfully good news. The good news is that the bad news is terrible..
What?
One experiment- Didn’t have the scientific data needed to change the rate of glazier melt around the world! We all wish the numbers were different!
Leave the Earth alone, it is just doing its thing, like it always has
There are eight billion others who need to eat. And electrical transportation isn’t doing it. How do you plan to get it done?
Hydrogen.
How do you plan to get it done? Well Ken, how about we pay whatever it costs to get it done, now, without destroying the planet in the process.
Gee, that sounds awfully like a tax on carbon emissions. Now that’s a novel idea!
Actually paying the TRUE cost for EVERYTHING we humans do as we go about our lives. Too radical for you Ken?
While this study suggests a downward adjustment in the contribution of temperate ice to sea-level rise, other accelerating processes, such as ice sheet melt in Greenland and Antarctica, thermal expansion of warming oceans, hydrofracturing of ice shelves, ice cliff instability, increased calving rates, and groundwater depletion, might well lead to overall increases in the rate of sea level rise exceeding earlier projections.
Your Macro phenomena are based on micro phenomena ( like the temperate ice coefficient of viscosity). All your examples include a horizontal displacement component and liquid channeling (because most land and ice deposition surfaces are slopes). If A is the interface application area of ice (not water) channeling could reduce effective A (densities contact surface) in real world conditions. I’m sure the investigators know this and that n=1 in the confined shear example may not be typical in reality, especially at sea ice margins. Nice work, thought to establish this discrepancy. It does matter, but your variation in natural conditions may still control over this fundamental finding.
Since the rate of flow for glaciers is a known historical number I fail to see how this changes things.
Wayne knows what he is talking about. The other eccentric climate deniers come out of the woodwork.
Let’s watch the headlong rush of private jets stream to some preferred high end travel destination, so the top end talking heads can address this anomaly.
Another example of “oh, actually, things arnt as bad as we thought” brought to us by our glorious “experts”. Now they can push the doomsday clock ahead another ten years or so, again.
Well!!!! At last somebody has sprinkled some magic common sense dust over what we all knew was scientific gooolash!!
We can all breath a sigh of relief and can carry on with our lives.
That is good news, and on track,if you melted the ice at the polls,the sea level would actually drop not rise,due to water is at its greatest density when it’s between 4deg to ice, and the temperature rise only effects top 3 tenths of surface level.
No. Pure water is densest at 4 C. Sea water is densest at its freezing point.
David Neal – your comment is only partially right. If ice floating on water near the poles melted, that in itself wouldn’t raise sea levels. But this bit of good news for the fossil fuel polluters is countered by at least these two objections: 1) When ice sitting on land (mountain glaciers, Antarctic land-based ice and snow, rtc.), the run-off to the sea will sea level because it’s additional water, not just the same amount changing state. Any scientist knows this; and climate change deniers should stop gaslighting the public by suggesting scientists are too dumb to know this;
and, 2) the bare land and or open sea left by ice melting have a higher absorption of solar heat, creating one of the more serious positive feedbacks accelerating climate change – carbon dioxide from fossil fuel consumption causes a small average global temp. rise, causing ice and snow melt, clearing them from open sea or land. Those areas absorb more solar heat, and warm the atmosphere more, causing more melting and clearing, etc. The result is increasing sea level from thermal-induced expansion.
“2) the … open sea left by ice melting have a higher absorption of solar heat, creating one of the more serious positive feedbacks accelerating climate change …”
One commonly sees this claim, but I have yet to see it supported with a detailed analysis. The idea is based on the unstated (and erroneous) assumption that snow and ice are always much more reflective than water, and the support for the idea of the low reflectivity of water comes from the simplistic observation that open water usually looks dark to the naive observer.
The problem with that unstated assumption is that water can have a specular reflectance higher than that of snow. The reflectance increases rapidly between about 60 and 90 degrees angle of incidence, reaching 100% at the glancing angle. The reason that the water typically looks dark is that, unlike the diffuse reflectance of snow, the specular reflectance of water is confined to a thin but wide sheaf of light that can only be seen when looking towards the sun and at about the same angle as the sun is above the horizon. Think about the last time you found yourself driving home from work on dark asphalt pavement, facing directly into the setting sun.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
“But this bit of good news for the fossil fuel polluters is countered by at least these two objections: …”
Can I assume from your denigration of people who use fossil fuels and related products derived from crude oil and natural gas, that you are not a member of that group? That is, you don’t drive a car or use commercial transportation that does, or ride a bicycle manufactured with the use of fossil fuels. You don’t wear clothes made from synthetic fibers derived from the byproducts of cracking natural hydrocarbons, or use electronics devices encapsulated in plastic and whose components were made using the energy derived from fossil fuels? Do you similarly shun the use of modern medicine dependent on electronic imaging devices, medicines and their containers made with the energy derived from fossil fuels, and that you live in a home and cook your food with something other than were either directly or indirectly made with fossil fuels? Even wind turbines and Photovoltaic solar farms are manufactured using diesel fuel to mine the ores to make the raw materials, are smelted and refined using fossil fuels, and fabricated into the end products using fossil fuels. Or are you a member of the polluting group you denigrate, who is just a hypocrite?
” 1) When ice sitting on land (mountain glaciers, Antarctic land-based ice and snow, rtc.), the run-off to the sea will [raise] sea level because it’s additional water, not just the same amount changing state.”
That is true ONLY if the rate of melting exceeds that rate of accumulation. It appears that the rate of melting only exceeds the rate of accumulation for West Antarctica, where there are dozens of known volcanoes, and apparently anomalous geothermal gradients, being an extension of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
This article is about new insights on how best to calculate the rate of movement of glacial ice of the type found in West Antarctica.
“That is true ONLY if the rate of melting exceeds that rate of accumulation.”
As is occurring in numerous places where there are mountain glaciers, such as the Andes and Himalayas.
“As is occurring in numerous places …”
It should be noted that there are a few places, particularly on the sides of the mountains facing away from the Equator, where the glaciers and snow fields have been static during the growth of CO2 in recent decades.
Robert offers scientific hypotheses that have yet to be confirmed. So far there is no evidence of human causes for rising sea levels. See IPCC, AR6, vol. 1, Table 12.12. The rate of sea level rise hasn’t changed for a long time.
Doomsday has already occurred and it’s unstoppable. Trump now believes that from the moment we were born we were all doomed, This “tipping point” occurred when we were conceived. As such nothing can be done to fix it
As such, all further climate “studies” grants are hereby cancelled. We now all have to go out to get a job and discover how to actually earn our living. We have been warned about this for 40 years and now it has actually occurred— we are the doomed; we have to now go out and find real work. Arghhhh
Just what if it’s Chinas artificial sun that’s 500,000x hotter than the sun they have been experimenting with it I know of since 2019 look it up on Google see if they don’t have one
You are correct, it is a game of fetch and chase. Change the dialogue according to the tax dollars it can collect with little or no reflection on the true facts. Climate changes, it is not getting warmer over the last 180 years, and if we tax it, the temperature will more than likely remain the same due to the Oceanic effects of temperature regulation world wide. When they test the temperature for the tax model it is always a proxy of events and over land, never water. Secondly, the CO2 scam is not a debate, if the CO2 level drops below 200 PPM the plant life dies of starvation. When the CO2 was 6000 PPM the earth was a vibrant jungle of plant activity, go figure. Peace-out😎
Climate cultists always warn of the doom and gloom of global warming. They never even think of the benefits of it. Nope, it’s all bad. That’s what they want you to think so they can tax you more and take away more of your rights. But think about it. What benefits could there be? How about a lot more land opening up for farming, mining, building homes, etc. My goodness, the powers that be have manipulated a lot of you into thinking the world is going to end of we don’t “control” the climate. Get a grip people. They’ve been saying this since the 70’s, yet the world still turns.
You mean this experiment changes the rate of glacial flow already measured? Wow that’s a hell of a time machine!
It’s almost like attributing climate change to humans so heavily has mostly been a money scheme all along. If it was carbon emissions, we’d simply plant more trees…mangroves, pines and oaks….but then what would world leaders use to scare the public into compliance with their regulations to bring in more money!?!
Hopefully https://scitechdaily.com/glacier-experts-uncover-critical-flaw-in-sea-level-rise-predictions/
Special tq EvoLGoD amen 🙏
It’s not carbon emissions,it’s carbon dioxide emissions,it’s good to see the world cleaning up the environment, but mostly all bulls*** money grab.
So, with more ice turning to liquid, seas will rise and the surface area of Earth’s water will be larger, allowing more evaporation, which will put more moisture in the atmosphere. More moisture will block/reflect more sunlight, cooling the earth, starting the next ice age
BINGO !
Climate change is absolutely driven by humans. Look at the Mer de Glace Glacier in Chamonix if you want a nice visual, it will put things into perspective for you. Easy to study past trends. Predicting the results of it is always going to be hit and miss. How, exactly will you plant more trees and mangroves?? Enough to offset world deforestation? And do it in a way where ppl aren’t like, “not in my yard you Soros paid hippie” while creating new conspiracies. It’s like those cov-19 patients using their last breaths to deny viruses exist. The conspiracy mindset is fascinating.
No it’s not, don’t be daft. The planet has warmed up and cooled down for hundreds of millions of years. Who do we humans think we are if we attribute all he blame to us. Maybe 5% is relatable to human activity. Educate yourself about science and stop being influenced by climate change nutters. Honestly!
We changed our atmosphere several times in the past, and changed it back – SO2 and NO2 causing acid rain, and CFCs chemically dissolving the layer of O3. Those molecules were at much lower concentrations than CO2, yet you think by increasing CO2 (and its proven heat-trapping physical properties) 120 ppm over any time while we have developed as a species, there will be no impact on us nor our ecosystems.
You really are one of those internet experts, aren’t you?
lol I love these comments. Looks like there really are some people that learn from the pattern of scientists changing their mind for the hundredth time.
“You really are one of those internet experts, aren’t you?”
What qualifies you to make such an accusatory remark? I take it that you consider yourself to be more of an expert than the people you are unhappy with. Don’t you find it a little ironic that an anonymous person with no known expertise would complain about others being less of an expert than yourself?
No. The earth has cooled and warmed many times, true. But the earth has never warmed at a rate nearly as fast as it is now. Greenhouse gases are increasing in tandem with temperature. The relationsip is clear-cut.
Where is all this heat coming from? Around the world we have added millions of electricity cars and 190’s of millions of solar panels. And yet heart keeps rising???
Could it be… we are being scammed?
Solar panels produce 125f temps baking in the sun. ( like turning on tiny heaters everywhere, ) all the roads they add and pave produce more heat, every cement building they build produces more heat.. and YOU wonder why the temps are rising??
Ask WHY to everything!!
Just hard to fathom – the climate doomsdayers. It’s not gonna matter when nuclear Armageddon happens. Yet they still continue to miserably shlep through life hoping for everyone to be as miserable as they are. I just can’t understand how smart people today are so stupid to buy into the climate hysteria. I almost never argue or post about climate change because it’s exactly like talking with religious zealots. Master degree in environmental engineering. PhD in atmospheric science. Made the best move ever to leave the environmental field and all its hysteria at the end of the 90’s. The science is interesting but the engineering is so watered down and unfortunately ignored. The environmental field is just too full of lawyers, beaurocrats and hysterical environmental zealots. Look at the comments there. The zealots are actually upset at the topic of good news in this article. Amazing. They want bad stuff to happen.
“But the earth has never warmed at a rate nearly as fast as it is now.”
What evidence do you provide that your statement is true? Time acts as a low-pass filter, suppressing peaks because dating is less certain (typically a percentage error whose absolute value increases the farther back one goes in time) and chemical evidence is subject to diffusion; proxy measurements have less than a perfect correlation with the parameter that is being estimated.
I rarely see any real scientific expertise demonstrated here in the comments. Mostly what I read are unsupported opinions obtained from who knows where.
“Greenhouse gases are increasing in tandem with temperature. The relationsip [sic] is clear-cut.”
The relationship is far from being “clear-cut.” Correlations alone do not establish cause and effect. Read the following link on spurious correlations to learn why you are wrong:
https://www.statology.org/spurious-correlation-examples/
We’ve managed To encourage the growth of more trees in the United States then there were a 100 years ago. Also if humans cause climate change why do we have records of 5 previous ice ages? If humans Speed up climate change then why is the current Holocene period the longest and mildest in our known record? Also if humans speed up climate change why is sea level rise lower then historic average? Most scientists agree that sea level has risen over 400 feet in the last 12000 years. That would be an average of 3/8 of an inch per year, right now predicted sea level rise is around 1/4 inch per year.
Where is all this heat coming from? Around the world we have added millions of electricity cars and 190’s of millions of solar panels. And yet heart keeps rising???
Could it be… we are being scammed?
Solar panels produce 125f temps baking in the sun. ( like turning on tiny heaters everywhere, ) all the roads they add and pave produce more heat, every cement building they build produces more heat.. and YOU wonder why the temps are rising??
Ask WHY to everything!!
“Also if humans cause climate change why do we have records of 5 previous ice ages? If humans Speed up climate change then why is the current Holocene period the longest and mildest in our known record? ”
Probably because because we humans only industrialised our societies beginning about 300 hundred years ago and because in 1750 there were only 750 million of us around not using cars, buses, trucks, aeroplanes, steamships and air-conditioning as daily needs, whereas there are now 8.5 billion of us demanding comfort far beyond that available to any of our predecessors during the ice ages.
That sidesteps the issue of why the Little Ice Age occurred and whether the climate is just rebounding after other natural causes ceased to suppress warming. It probably isn’t just a coincidence that the Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum.
There are published reports that demonstrate that waste heat from human activities does not account for post-industrialization warming. It is less clear whether CO2 causes warming by slowing the loss of IR, or whether warming encourages the biological activity of bacteria and fungi, as is easily demonstrated by the seasonal ramp-up of CO2 and the anomalous increase of CO2 during El Niño years.
Which side-steps the issue that before and during the Little Ice Age there were far fewer people around now burning even far less hydrocarbon fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil-based hydrocarbons than has occurred since 1900. I suggest that there is indeed a correlation between burning hydrocarbon fuels and the amount of CO2 produced by said burnings. Unless there is something wrong with expectations derived from chemistry.
CO2 was demonstrated as a “greenhouse” gas back in the 1850s by a very simple experiment. It was postulated as such in 1824 and I have read that this was confirmed back in 1827, let alone by the subsequent “jam-jar” test in the 1850s. Figures from the Mauna Loa observatory do indicate that the ppms of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased since since that observatory began keeping records in the 1950s. From a monthly average of about 315ppm in 1958 to 425ppm now, with a series of sinusoidal-type of curves (I presume according to time of year and hence biological activities) built on what appears to be an upward exponential curve. The same style of exponential curve describes our increasing use of hydrocarbon fuels since 1850, natural gas in ever -increasing amounts coming on stream in the 1970s.
Whilst there is the argument that a coincidence does not a correlation make, hydrocarbon fuel use, CO2 production and human population growth share the same types of trajectory and, assuming a correlation, our global society is on a hiding to nowhere if we do not apply the very unpopular precautionary principle to our collective behavior.
“CO2 was demonstrated as a ‘greenhouse’ gas back in the 1850s by a very simple experiment.”
That is like saying that it has been demonstrated that wood burns and is therefore dangerous. It overlooks the facts that there has to be a source of ignition and oxygen to support the combustion. That is, CO2 is part of a complex system with feedback loops that determine the net result. Citing a fact out of context proves nothing.
“The same style of exponential curve describes our increasing use of hydrocarbon fuels since 1850, …”
All biological growth, not just humans, tends to be exponential.
“… if we do not apply the very unpopular precautionary principle to our collective behavior.”
I think that I have already mentioned to you that Chauncey Starr has demonstrated that people are willing to take risks in proportion to their perceived benefits. Unfortunately, the perceived benefits can be influenced by the news and entertainment media. The most serious flaw in the Precautionary Principle is that if the cause of warming isn’t anthropogenic CO2, the sacrifices will not cure the problem and there is a risk that the Principle of Unintended Consequences might exacerbate the problem. It is best to wait until is it certain how the system works unless there is noting to lose in acting.
“It is best to wait until is it certain how the…”
Do nothing. Kick the can down the road. Leave it for future generations to deal with. Really? That’s all you’ve got? You think that is best? The sum total of your contribution to fixing the issue, is to make yourself feel better by using cherry-picked facts and figures to win the debate?
In the future they will despise you and your pathetic excuses, your lack of empathy, your unflinching stubbornness to face reality.
“…, right now predicted sea level rise is around 1/4 inch per year.”
Actually, until very recently, sea level rise has been less than 3 mm per year, which is about 1/8th inch per year. You are only off by a factor of two. There is no historical reason to believe that the current rate won’t decline to former values because there have been transient increases in the past.
Just hard to fathom – the climate doomsdayers. It’s not gonna matter when nuclear Armageddon happens. Yet they still continue to miserably shlep through life hoping for everyone to be as miserable as they are. I just can’t understand how smart people today are so stupid to buy into the climate hysteria. I almost never argue or post about climate change because it’s exactly like talking with religious zealots. Master degree in environmental engineering. PhD in atmospheric science. Made the best move ever to leave the environmental field and all its hysteria at the end of the 90’s. The science is interesting but the engineering is so watered down and unfortunately ignored. The environmental field is just too full of lawyers, beaurocrats and hysterical environmental zealots. Look at the comments there. The zealots are actually upset at the topic of good news in this article. Amazing. They want bad stuff to happen.
“It’s not gonna matter when nuclear Armageddon happens.”
Yes, the Doomsday Clock is closer to midnight than it has ever been, and those claiming the oceans are “boiling” are engaging is what amounts to arguing over how the deck chairs should be placed on the Titanic.
It’s one study that has a *slightly* different result from decades of study and science. But sure, everything’s fine.
It usually takes decades to make progress in science. The important question is whether the results can be replicated. Then its NOT just one study.
Let’s see what the “experts” come up with next. Cow farts, acid rain and melting ice didn’t work.
The arm-chair climate experts here don’t seem to appreciate the scientific method of observation, experimentation and honest reporting of results. Trust experts for the big picture not gut feelings. Would you let your know-it-all neighbor do brain surgery on you?
Iowa State has received about $20 million from oil and gas companies over the last 10 years. Source: https://iowastatedaily.com/276445/news/iowa-state-received-nearly-20-million-from-fossil-fuel-companies/.
“In 2015, the University of Wisconsin’s WFAA foundation had $106,699,435 in alumni donations invested in oil and gas.” Source: https://badgerherald.com/opinion/2021/04/13/letter-to-the-editor-climate-change-proudly-sponsored-by-uw-alumni-donations/
“Fossil fuel companies donated $700m to US universities over 10 years – Funding at 27 universities can shift not just research agendas, but also policy in the direction the industry prefers…”.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/01/fossil-fuel-companies-donate-millions-us-universities“.
The reason that researchers who publish in peer reviewed journals are asked if they have potential conflicts of interest is that a potential conflict suggests a more rigorous scrutiny of the facts and claims. However, it alone is not reason to disqualify someone from publishing. It is the evidence that they present that should be the final determinant in their claims. Anything less is really no more than an ad hominem attack. I would consider your listing of money donated, without any evidence of malfeasance presented, just innuendo, to be an ad hominem attack.
The Scientific Method provides for retractions of papers if someone is found lying, so there is a disincentive to try to game the system. Is the incentive of money any more powerful than the motivation of political or religious zeal?
‘ is that a potential conflict suggests a more rigorous scrutiny of the facts and claims’
Really? It is odd how I have found that scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals are able to ignore data and ideas when a certain paradigm has been established for a certain number of years and papers. Reviewers of scientific papers also from the same problem.
That is true, which is why skepticism should be encouraged in science. Overcoming the inertia of a paradigm is difficult.
“Would you let your know-it-all neighbor do brain surgery on you?”
It is a false analogy. First off, your “your know-it-all neighbor” might actually be a brain surgeon in his day job. Secondly, there are polymaths in the world who are experts at many things. What is missing is any evidence from you that people you disagree with are actually not experts. Although, I didn’t see anything in your remark to suggest that you are any kind of an expert, other than the pretentious “Dr.” in front of your initial.
I do agree with you that there is rarely any commenter here who demonstrates more than a superficial acquaintance with the Scientific Method, including yourself.
Maybe now the world should start making desalination plants to counter the droughts and take from the rising ocean levels . And what do you do with the SALT , distribute where the glacier melt is unbalancing the the salt level in the oceans . Yes it’s an impossible task but it’s a good task . And distribute the fresh water from the desalination plants where needed maybe try to replenish aquifers that are running lean or store it inland . Just a thought 🤔
How do you propose to mediate the CO2 from planes or ships used to re-balance the salinity?
The US Department of Defense has lost facilities at sea level due to sea level rise already. The mockers will mock, but the outcomes will be the same. If the glaciers keep melting coastal communities are going to have problems.
Can you expand on what you mean by “has lost facilities at sea level due to sea level rise?” Also, were the alleged losses just from sea level rise, or did subsidence play a critical role?
” Also, were the alleged losses just from sea level rise, or did subsidence play a critical role?”
And there lies an interesting question.
On the East Coast of the USA, most of the apparent sea level rise has been shown to actually be subsidence, when it has actually been examined. There are places in the world where there doesn’t appear to be any significant sea level rise, albeit it some of the evidence appears little better than anecdotal.
All the climate deniers are correct, we can’t effect the world. There’s obviously more money in environmental movements than there is in clear cutting forests and burning coal and oil, it’s the greedy scientist’s and hippies making all the 🤥🤡…
100% correct
This publication is about ice flow but water flow is more important precisely because water is less viscous than ice. Water not ice flows away from the surface of the Greenland ice cap when it melts. Antarctica has a lot of marine ice sitting on the sea floor and again sea water above it’s melting point can flow to this ice without the ice flowing at all.
Iowa State has received about $20 million from oil and gas companies over the last 10 years. Source: https://iowastatedaily.com/276445/news/iowa-state-received-nearly-20-million-from-fossil-fuel-companies/.
“In 2015, the University of Wisconsin’s WFAA foundation had $106,699,435 in alumni donations invested in oil and gas.” Source: https://badgerherald.com/opinion/2021/04/13/letter-to-the-editor-climate-change-proudly-sponsored-by-uw-alumni-donations/
“Fossil fuel companies donated $700m to US universities over 10 years – Funding at 27 universities can shift not just research agendas, but also policy in the direction the industry prefers…”.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/01/fossil-fuel-companies-donate-millions-us-universities“.
The researchers comment that “it was really hard to get this to work”
seems to indicate that they had a specific outcome in mind from the beginning, and had to manipulate the experiment to get the desired results.
That is not necessarily the case. However, they should have been more explicit about the nature of their problems.
Besides, the researchers is irrelevant to the extent that glaciers are melting everywhere, and melted ice is water that flows to the sea. It does not matter how fast the ice itself moves.
“It does not matter how fast the ice itself moves.”
Not everyone shares your assessment.
https://scitechdaily.com/antarcticas-thinning-ice-shelves-causing-more-ice-to-flow-into-sea/
It would improve your credibility if your provided some facts to support your claims.
“Climate changes, it is not getting warmer over the last 180 years, ….”
Please advise why I can now row a boat across the now-melted glacier across which I used to walk to work? That lake is not in an area of high-heat flow. In 1840 that glacier would have been at lest 50 feet higher than its lateral moraine, as it was in 1890. Something must have got warmer.
1) There could be a decrease in cloudiness and consequent increase in insolation, warming the ice
2) There could be a decrease in snow
3) There could be an increase in dust, soot, automobile tire particles
Although, I doubt that there hasn’t been some warming of the atmosphere.
You might find the following worth reading:
https://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Chamberlin1897.pdf
A decrease in snow and / or cloudiness would indicate some form of change to the weather patterns coming off the Southern Ocean; perhaps wetter (more rainy days than snowy ones) or more cloudy because the “average” zero degree isotherm had risen in altitude, or perhaps drier for a similar reason. I gather that in the days of my ambling about glaciers the summer rain was falling on a nearby ice-capped 12000 feet-high peak nearby. The glacier on which I walked had long been covered in a surface moraine of rock debris because of past melting since the 1890s at the latest. The increase in dust etc argument would not work.
No known mantle plumes within cooee.
So why had that region seen a persistent change in the weather indicated by the 130 year-long reduction in snow supply? That has happened to plenty of mountain glaciers globally.
Interesting paper you offered discussing way paradigms and consequently how reviewers for learned journals might operate. The “vested interest” or “locked into a paradigm” argument is one often lodged against assorted scientists arguing the case for anthropogenic global heating, just as cynics might claim that scientists messing about with shear zones in melting ice have cynically accepted money from oil companies.
“So why had that region seen a persistent change in the weather indicated by the 130 year-long reduction in snow supply?”
Change is what climate does, albeit slowly. Plate tectonics even effects global climate. Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is usually right. I think that the simplest explanation doesn’t require anthropogenic CO2 to drive the changes.
Thank You for helping debunk Global
Hoax with vital information !
We just blew by 1.5 degrees C. which scientists have been warning us over for 10 years to avoid the worst outcomes of global warming in the Paris accords. True to their predictions storms are getting stronger and more frequent. Firestorms from wildfires are more prevalent and catastrophic. If we ignore all of the signs and warnings we are doing our future generations great harm. Fossil fuels are finite. We need alternatives. The quicker the better. 8 billion hungry people are the problem and growing fast, consuming more resources and contributing to more energy consumption and yes, raising the temperature.
That’s just it Wayne. Ultimately, the problem is not excess CO2 emissions due to a greedy society. The problem is, there’s 8 BILLION people on this earth and the number is growing. Improved sanitation and, to a small extent, healthcare has led to a sudden increase in life expectancy over the last 150 years, which has augmented the problem.
No one wants to touch on the problem of global population and I don’t blame them. All the chest thumping over fossil fuels is just that, chest thumping. We have to feed these people some way or another. That requires energy…….
I thought the science was settled?
“I thought the science was settled”
It is Mark. The science is settled. The planet is warming. People like Clive are going to debate us all to death long before global warming cooks us!
The real question is, what are we going to do about it? The Clives of this world would seem to be too self absorbed to do anything useful. I guess it’s up to the rest of us to do what ever we can.
Good to see the comment sections on these articles are as idiotic as ever in 2025 with half of LA burned to the ground
Ahhhhh …… The comments ….. As usual mostly sarcastic brats who mostly know nothing about a complex subject…. But who are convinced they are completely right at all times because their mommies told them that ……and refuse to consider the other side ….. This is what’s wrong with this generation …… I’m right….. Screw you because to disagree ….. I’ll triple down on my opinion because I don’t like you because you said I’m wrong.
The biggest danger of global warming, natural or not, has nothing to do with the ice melting and everything to do with our mitochondria.
But hey, this article has more comments than I’ve ever seen on this site so who cares what’s actually happening as long as y’all are distracted.
Are natural resources infinite? Some say we only have 30 to 100 years of oil & gas reserves in the ground. What happens when we run out?
Now that we know this information the glaciers can’t lie to us anymore about their speed.