3 ms·

> One generally says one kelvin per 100m elevation That's not true in Europe nor Asia nor South America nor Africa, although I didn't climb mountains specifica

> One generally says one kelvin per 100m elevation That's not true in Europe nor Asia nor South America nor Africa, although I didn't climb mountains specifically in Greenland to be factual. Better value is cca 0.6C per 100m, or 6C per 1km (sorry, no conversion to feet/yard vs F and similar fun games for lazy sunday afternoon... seriously, with all the love, fix this shit guys, we are not living in 15th century when similar stuff was common and accepted). It depends on many factors including humidity and local meteorology. That part discussed about moving surface down doesn't make sense - you can lower glacier only to base rock/soil level. But at this level, where glacier starts, its already the dreaded temperature they want to avoid, so glaciers should be melting from the bottom with this logic. If they mean that once ice melts the rock temperature rises well yeah, that's a no brainer, its a different surface. Ice has surface temperature below/around 0, any rock hit with sun can easily surpass that even during winter. I know reality is more complex out there, one of my todos is to have sleepover (no tent) on nearby Mer de Glace in Chamonix, France. Just me, gazillion stars, mountains crumbling around me and glacier cracking beneath my ass.

Arnt 4y ago
IMO, if you think you need a more precise estimate than 1K/100m, then you should just get a weather forecast for the relevant area and day.
czinck 4y ago
>But at this level, where glacier starts, its already the dreaded temperature they want to avoid, so glaciers should be melting from the bottom with this logic. Yes, that's generally what happens to glaciers even ignoring climate change. The bottom melts, but is replaced by snow/ice that accumulated on top. Glaciers grow top down, not bottom up. But, if you lower the top so it's warmer, less ice accumulates, which can't replace all that melts, and so you get net shrinking.
- Arnt 4y ago
  I agree that this is probably what the article tries to say. There is another possibility, though: Maybe it's saying that a large area of Greenland's ice surface is at an elevation where the glaciers are barely staying neutral. If that's what it tries to say, then having all of that area sink by 3m means that a large area goes into decline and stays in a state of decline. The surface sinking by 3m, 10m, 20m or 50m would then be much the same, just different speeds of irreversible decline.

Arnt 4y ago

IMO, if you think you need a more precise estimate than 1K/100m, then you should just get a weather forecast for the relevant area and day.

czinck 4y ago

>But at this level, where glacier starts, its already the dreaded temperature they want to avoid, so glaciers should be melting from the bottom with this logic. Yes, that's generally what happens to glaciers even ignoring climate change. The bottom melts, but is replaced by snow/ice that accumulated on top. Glaciers grow top down, not bottom up. But, if you lower the top so it's warmer, less ice accumulates, which can't replace all that melts, and so you get net shrinking.

Arnt 4y ago
I agree that this is probably what the article tries to say. There is another possibility, though: Maybe it's saying that a large area of Greenland's ice surface is at an elevation where the glaciers are barely staying neutral. If that's what it tries to say, then having all of that area sink by 3m means that a large area goes into decline and stays in a state of decline. The surface sinking by 3m, 10m, 20m or 50m would then be much the same, just different speeds of irreversible decline.