Greenland - Science topic

Hi. I have three questions about Landsat 8 and LST.

Q1.

I want to use Landsat 8 TIRS data to calculate Land Surface Temperature (LST) of the arctic regions.

So far, I have pre-processed BT and TOA from Level 1 DN, converted to LSE, and added NDVI to obtain the LST value.

However, I have some anxiety that this method is inaccurate than using Level 2.

Nevertheless, the reason why I could not use Level 2 ST (Band 10) product is because of the data gap due to missing of ASTER GED data (figure).

As you can see from the link below, the high latitude regions such as Greenland and Iceland have data gap issue in ST products.

(https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-surface-temperature-data-gaps-due-missing-aster-ged)

I wonder if there are some methods or alternative to overcome the data gap.

Q2.

I know that Sobrino 2004's method is frequently cited in LST calculations, and I know that there was a stray light problem with Landsat 8 TIRS.

However, recently I got to know that there are so many algorithms for converting TIRS images to LST (e.g., Split-Window or Single Channel)

Also, I found out that the stray light issue has already been calibrated in 2019.

(https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-8-oli-and-tirs-calibration-notices)

Now, I wonder which algorithm is most appropriate for converting Landsat 8 TIRS images to LST.

Q3.

Is there no need to preprocess Level 2 SR products for NDVI or other band combinations?

Hello everyone, I picked some pieces of questionable small shelly fossils from Greenland but am still in trouble recognizing them. I was wondering whether it is a fragment or a whole fossil itself. You can see the distinctive lattice-like structures throughout the specimen. Any kind of idea is welcome.

- Age: Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4

- Occurrence: Greenland

Valentin Amrhein, Sander Greenland, Blake McShane and more than 800 signatories call for an end to hyped claims and the dismissal of possibly crucial effects of statistical significance:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9

The biggest argument: “Statistically significant” or “not statistically significant” is too often easily misinterpreted to mean either “the study worked” or “the study did not work.” A “true” effect can sometimes yield a p-value of greater than .05. And we know from recent years that science is rife with false-positive studies that achieved values of less than .05:

There are a number published articles which substantiate above-mentioned views. It has been my personal experience that because of poor and erratic performance of check varieties across replications, LSD gets enhanced and we loose some promising candidate genotypes for ever. It is debatable whether the time has come to totally abandon the concept of statistiscal significance from biological or social science experiments. Dear RG members, you are most welcome to express your opinion.

We are working on a revised version of the global water cycle and need estimates of surface and deep ocean water. We have found several estimates from popular sources (websites and magazines) ranging from 80-90% deep water, but haven't found peer-reviewed estimates. The line between surface and deep water is often set at a neutral density of 28.11 kg/m3 (e.g. Ganachaud and Wunsch 2000, Nature). We are also looking for global estimates of ice discharge (mainly Greenland and Antarctica) if you have any good references. Thanks!

why the maximum age varies in the ice sheets those are present in the earth. (Between Antarctica and Greenland)

I'm looking for examples of Community-based economic developement project in the Arctic. I know well the Canadian context but I'm looking for examples in Alaska, Greenland, Russia and in the Nordic Countries.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:56.7pt 42.5pt 56.7pt 85.05pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

In modern climatology general scheme of the global hydrological cycle and energy budget of the Earth have several disadvantages that exist for over a hundred years. But, sooner or later, they must be corrected. Now is the time to do it. What the mistakes we talking about? This is because the above schemes did not include the huge potential energy accumulated in the glaciers. The energy accumulation accompanied by accumulation of ice. That lasted thousands of years. Since the beginning of deglaciation the ice turns to water which escapes from a certain height. As a result, the potential energy of the ice turns into kinetic energy of water. The total potential energy on the start the melting of glaciers is determined by average height of the glacier, the total weight of ice and gravity. That is general equation of Newton physics - mgh.

How much energy had been realized since the melting of glaciers? It is easy to calculate. Over twenty thousand years have passed since the beginning of quick glacial melting, simultaneously the sea levels rose to 120 meters. Thus, this value is multiplied by the area of the water surface of the Earth and on the average glaciers height (about 2000 meters). Taking into account the gravity we find the total energy released from glaciers over last twenty thousand years. Perhaps, it will be many.

Today the annual volume of energy released from glaciers can be calculated only for Greenland. From research we know that every year about 200 cubic kilometers of water from the glacier goes into the Ocean. This amount is about 70 percent water coming from all modern glaciers, together with Antarctica ice cap.

Multiplying all values we find quantitative amount of the annual release of energy. It is 4 000 000 000 000 000 000 Joules. or 1,111,111,111 MWh. If we take for comparison most powerful hydroelectric in the world Three Gorges Dam (China) - 22, 5 MW then this energy it will produce over 49,382,716 hours, or 2,057,613 days. It ultimately equals 5637 years. All together of the world hydroelectric energy produces such energy somewhere for a thousand years.

Despite the fact that in compare with total energy budget of the Earth these values, at first glance, are miserable. But here we must remember that this energy is working on a very limited area of melting glacier. Today it is about 50 000 km2 for Greenland. And all the energy goes to further the melting glacier. That is, it operates in the most vulnerable areas.

Research the melting of Greenland glaciers shows that within the general area of melting the water initially collected in the supraglacial lakes and then quickly falls down through the channels in the body of ice. These inlet channels called moulin. Their area against the background of the ice surface, probably are less than 1%. In reality, the space concentration of energy is many more.

That's why this energy requires consideration when studying other territories and the causes of global warming. Confronting of it is not possible, but the accounting of this energy permits make more accurate predictions of events for the future.

In recent years we have been observing various pro-independence movements around the world such as Catalonia, Scotland, Bougainville, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Greenland, Papua, California, Guam, Faroe Islands, Azores, Kurdistan, Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and Rapa Nui. Are we experiencing a new wave of nationalism and independence, like that of the 1960s and 1990s?

There are many questions about China's involvement in mineral resources in Greenland I'd like to ask. For example, what kind of minerals are China exploring? What're the scales? How does the exploration affect local communities environmentally and/or economically? How do Chinese investors interact with local governments and citizens in Greenland? I look forward to hearing your findings on these questions.

Yes. Observations show a global-scale decline of snow and ice over many years, especially since 1980 and increasing during the past decade, despite growth in some places and little change in others. Most mountain glaciers are getting smaller. Snow cover is retreating earlier in the spring. Sea ice in the Arctic is shrinking in all seasons, most dramatically in summer. Reductions are reported in permafrost, seasonally frozen ground and river and lake ice. Important coastal regions of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica, and the glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula, are thinning and contributing to sea level rise. The total contribution of glacier, ice cap and ice sheet melt to sea level rise is estimated as 1.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr for the period 1993 to 2003.

The picture of this brittlestar is from the North West Atlantic at about 900 m. depth. The location is near the Greenlandic coast.

Can this Brittlestar be confirmed as an Ophiomusium lymani ? or could I be looking at something completely different

I am using Modis visible subsets and swath images with 250 m and 500 m resolution to visually characterize the occurrence of sea ice leads for specific regions in the Arctic.

Unfortunately the Images prior to 8 May 2012 are not available at the NASA websites anymore due to a hard disc failure and no solution of the problem is expected for the near future. Therefore I am looking for satellite imagery that is highly enough resolved to distinguish single sea ice leads.

My study period is March to April 2012. The regions are in the western Arctic north of Svalbard, Greenland, Ellesmere Island and in the Beaufort Sea.