Greenland Glaciers Melting Much Faster 460
grqb writes "NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says that satellite observations indicate that Greenland's glaciers have been dumping ice into the Atlantic Ocean at a rate that's doubled over the past five years. Greenland Ice Sheet's annual loss has risen from 21.6 cubic miles in 1996 to 36 cubic miles in 2005 and it now contributes about 0.5 millimeters out of 3 millimeters to global sea level increases. One theory as to why this is happening is that the meltwater, caused by increasing temperatures in Greenland, serves as a lubricant for the moving ice, hastening its push to the sea. Another study has estimated that the warming rate in Greenland was 2.2 times faster than the global norm -- which is in line with U.N. climate models."
its not global warming (Score:2, Funny)
Re:its not global warming (Score:3, Funny)
thank you for thoughts
Re:its not global warming (Score:2)
Sue Greenland! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sue Greenland! (Score:2, Funny)
The White House has requested your resume and interview schedule from you.
Re:Sue Greenland! (Score:2, Funny)
If they don't give in, we will just blow their icy country into pieces! Without ice, how can they dump ice into the ocean?
Would someone think of the shivering baby seals?
Now Denmark got a two front war (Score:2, Funny)
Step 1, Kick Denmark out of NATO.
Step 2, Bomb their shitty country back to the stone age.
Step 3, See if the ice is still melting on Greenland.
Step 4, Ask the world community to join in since it's going shit creek.
Step 5, ???
Step 6, Drill for more oil in Alaska.
Re:Sue Greenland! (Score:3, Funny)
"According to the sagas it was actually Eric the Red who called this country Greenland [greenland-guide.gl]. After he had lived for three years in this region he returned to Iceland, and wanted to convince his fellow countrymen of the fine opportunities for starting a new life here in this 'Green Land'."
NAO (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't think it's a good idea to make climate extrapolations from five years of data over a small part of the globe. There's plenty of other evidence of global warming without this bullshit.
Re:NAO (Score:2)
BTW, yes, there is more snow, but that is because more moisture in warmer air.
Re:NAO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NAO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NAO (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NAO (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a religious statement, not a scientific one. There is most certainly doubt as to where the climate is heading. Many global circulation models predict a hotter, drier climate in the next few hundred years. Some ice core data suggests that the interglacial climate is bimodal, with the second mode having an average global temperature 5 C or so warmer than the historical average, and we may be heading into a (possibly human-induced) mode change.
And given that the large (million-year) scale of climate change is extremly poorly understood, there is no reason to believe that the current interglacial is not the end of the ice-age that has dominated Earth's climate for the last million years or so. So there is doubt all round, and the only thing that is certain is that people who have no doubts about the correctness of their own position are contributing nothing but noise to a very complex debate.
Re:NAO (Score:3, Informative)
I think he's talking about the potential of much colder winters in Europe (and only Europe) thanks to the gulf stream slowing down/completely stopping (see, for example this paper [nih.gov] for recent evidence of changes to the gulf stream flow)
Invade them! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Invade them! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry, where were the accurate predictions? The second paragraph of the actual article says
The evolution of the ice sheet, in the context of climate warming, is more rapid than has been predicted by models
From what I can tell, they missed by more than a factor of two. While that's in the same order of magnitude, I don't consider it particularly accurate.
The article goes on:
Rignot and Kanagaratnam say their calculations indicate that the Greenlan
Re:Invade them! (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Invade them! (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the acceleration of the glaciers was not predicted.
I guess the bushites are going to have to be content with using this "failure of science" as proof that
1. global warming models are inaccurate, and
2. Evolution must be wrong, too.
Re:Invade them! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Invade them! (Score:3, Informative)
This event was predicted sufficiently long ago for "The Day after Tomorrow!" to be on the screens last year. (It might have been lousy science, but it was based on good science.) Go to see it...then imagine the
Re:Invade them! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's hillarious that you said that. Can you show me any report on global warming from any scientific journal that doesn't have a standard deviation so large that you can predict anything (i.e. warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature)? Can you also show me any computer simulation that these researchers have used where they actually quote their chi squared per degree of freed
Re:Invade them! (Score:2)
3 mm. Consider how grassy the data must be. First you have ocean waves ranging from a few inches up to a dozen meters. Then you have tides. Then there's seasonal affects (like river flow rates). Then you have weather. If Hurricane Katrina informed the p
Umm... (Score:2)
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Invade them! (Score:2)
(Just as a note for the more challenged among the moderators, the above was funny/sarcasm.
There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:5, Insightful)
To them I say.. its useless. Your puny little voices will not be heard. The only way to stop global warming were for the people of the world to collectively reduce their usage of energy and lower their standard of living. Its not happening. It simply is not going to happen.
2) The fact that it cannot be proven that it is human's causing this global warming, and that we know very little about the climate and have been measuring it for a very very short time.
To them I say.. Sure. Fine. But just remember that our great and global civilization wont be the first to have underestimated their effect on nature. History has shown that civilizations CAN affect the environment around them to the point that their civilization becomes unsustainable. Look up the end of the Mayan civilization. Actually even the Easter Islands belong to this category.
Bottom line. I dont think we are hurtling toward the point of no-return.. I believe we are PAST the point of no return.. at this point we might as well just try to find ourselves another planet, or work on technologies that make sure our civilization can survive the future.
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:3, Insightful)
No scientist living claims there's a way to stop global warming, only (perhaps) to reduce it somewhat. The damage (regardless of the cause) is already done and far beyond our understanding, much less our ability to repair.
But just remember that our great and global civilization wont be the first to have underestimated their effect on nature. History has shown
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:2)
Just to note, he didn't say uninhabitable, just unsustainable. i.e. a big economic/population crash.
The runaway greenhouse effect (Score:2)
You can stop it by deploying a large structure in space that reflects some of the sun's light... or you can scrub greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere... or you can fill the atmosphere with dust like after a large volcanic eruption or a nuclear winter.
There are solutions, but no money has been spent on developing them. This is because the policy makers either are incompetent or don't really care.
I don't
Re:The runaway greenhouse effect (Score:2)
Why aren't policy makers doing more? Well, we're actually already doing a significant amount to understand the climate. Quite a few million dollars of government grants go
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:5, Informative)
I won't make earth uninhabitable bit it will make it more miserable. We can adapt after the population has been culled and after the resource wars have been settled. The balance of power probably won't shift too much, we will probably go ahead and kill lots of people and take over their natural resources and lets face it they can't do jack shit to stop us.
I don't know if Americans will be happier when it's all said and done but for sure many other countries will be either gone or miserable. I suspect even Americans will have a lower standard of living because most of the foods they are used to eating now will simply be unavailable.
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:3, Funny)
Alarmist (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:2, Insightful)
To them I say.. Sure. Fine. But just remember that our great and global civilization wont be the first to have underestimated their effect on nature. History has shown that civilizations CAN affect the environment around them to the point that their civilization becomes unsustainable. Look up the end of the Mayan civilization. Actually even the Easter Islands belong to this category.
[/i]
The Mayan's and the Easter Islanders didn't have nuclear power.. and nuclear weapons. We're not going back to the stone
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:2)
True, but the people smart enough to realize the truth in this are already doing it, leaving less educated people responsible for all the reproduction. Parents with less education tend to have less successful children. Whether or not it's dilluting the gene pool is a debatable and touchy subject. Perhaps, encouraging the previous people to adopt might
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:2)
On a more serious note though, Albert Einstein was once approached by a beautiful young woman, according to an anecdote. She desperately wanted to have kids with Einstein, because "imagine how perfect children we would get, my beauty and your intellect". Einstein replied: "That is true, there is a chance for that, but there is an equal chance that we'd have children with MY look and YOUR int
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:2)
Actually this is not entirely accurate. Nuclear energy is not really portable. Solar powercells require platinum which is a quite scarce and finite resource. While there are research into eliminating both of these limitations its not expected to be dealt with anyday soon.
The problem with coal is that its
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Solar powercells require platinum which is a quite scarce and finite resource. While there are research into eliminating both of these limitations its not expected to be dealt with anyday soon. "
The principle raw materials used to manufacture Solar cells/panels are glass (Si02), Si, Al, Cu and some HC based resins. All of which are available in large quantities(Sand) and recyclable.
There is NO Platinum or Palladium used in the manufacturing of Solar cells and/or panels.
...H2 based fuel c
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:2)
I went and did a bit of reading about this to try to get your point. The best I could come up with is that the Mayan civilization likely died down due to a drought. Can you tell me how you think the Maya caused this drought?
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think an important point, that needs to be made more often, is that via energy efficiency it is possible to reduce energy use without lowering the standard of living. Build a house with better insulation, more efficient heating systems etc. and you can dramatically reduce energy use without changing the standard of living. Yes there's a greater initial outlay
A couple of things to think about before... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.physorg.com/news10978.html [physorg.com]
Warmer than a Hot Tub: Atlantic Ocean Temperatures Much Higher - Scientists have found evidence that tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures may have once reached 107F (42C)--about 25F (14C) higher than ocean temperatures today and warmer than a hot tub.
Ooops.. and that was normal back then? With oceans like that how much ice do you think was floating in them?
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on [stanford.edu]
Re:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you assume that reducing energy usage inherently reduces your standard of living?
* If your house is better insulated, you use less energy to heat or cool it. How does that lower your standard of living?
* A 2006 model car (note that I said car, not masquerading truck) will get better mileage, comfort and performance than it's 1996 equivalent. Again, how does that lower the standard of liv
Right concern, wrong conclusions (Score:3, Insightful)
Desperately poor people do more damage to their environment, even at the expense of their viability. Proof: Haiti.
(this should be too obvious for me to have to say it but...) The only way to stop global warming is to reverse the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is
Why is this Important? (Score:4, Interesting)
At this point I don't care who or what is causing the meltdown. What I want are some realistic ways to mitigate the effects. Solutions, not finger pointing.
Re:Why is this Important? (Score:2)
Ha! That's a hoot.
Haw! Where's the Skeptical Environmentalist now? (Score:5, Interesting)
To all danes except Lomborg (Score:2)
Re:Haw! Where's the Skeptical Environmentalist now (Score:4, Informative)
No it doesn't. This study only measured iceloss by looking at glacier thickness and velocity around the coast line.
Inland the ice sheet is actually gaining thickness. There is always a different side to the story. The geophysics department at Copenhagen University, where I have studied (astrophysics though) has thoroughly confirmed this.
Reference:a -eas110405.php [eurekalert.org]
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/es
Er, don't throw away your lifevest just yet (Score:4, Informative)
When mean temperature is raised by three degrees, ice melts. It's happeing all over the arctic, and anyone who thought that somehow Greenland would somehow avoid the trend is, literally, all wet.
Re:Er, don't throw away your lifevest just yet (Score:3, Informative)
I know, the idea that there is substantial warming in the northern hemisphere seems strange too....
Espcially when you look at this photo [solarviews.com]
I mean, where could all that heat production be coming from?
Simply... (Score:3, Interesting)
>the climate cycle of a [b]planet[/b]?
Interesting times (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting times (Score:2, Informative)
- massive displacement, disease, starvation caused by rising sea levels
- increased weather volitility caused by warming oceans, resulting in harsher storms (Gulf of Mexico)
- Oil wars
- Widespead famine
- New diseases, and existing diseases increasing their operational area (eg malaria)
- Increase in fundamentalism, as people try to understand why these things are happening
- Fingerpointing ('this is YOUR fault!') and more war
- destabilisation of trad
Yes they will melt and sea levels will rise. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes they will melt and sea levels will rise. (Score:2, Funny)
Remind me again why this is a bad thing? (Score:2)
Re:Remind me again why this is a bad thing? (Score:2)
Which data is correct? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/greenland
I don't doubt that human existence is causing some changes in the Earth's environment, but I doubt we've hit the point of no return yet. Besides, if we're ever going to colonize nearby space, we'll needs lots of water. And since this is the only planet we know of to have vast amounts of liquid water (and certainly the only one we readily have access to), perhaps it's not such a bad thing that all the Earth's ice is melting. Adaptation has worked for our species before, I'm sure it can work again.
Re:Which data is correct? (Score:3, Interesting)
Put it in perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
1 foot = 304.8 millimeters
304.8 * 20 * 2 = 12,192
So we have 12,192 years until all the glacier ice melts in Greenland assuming the rate is constant. We still have some time.
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:3, Funny)
and you respond
I know you can't be expected to read the article, but not even the post? I believe this marks a new low for slashdot.
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:2)
"It was thought the entire Greenland ice sheet could melt in about 1,000 years, but the latest evidence suggests that could happen much sooner."
And also: "Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise today is two to three times greater than it was in 1996." and "Over the past 20 years, the air temperature in south-east Greenland has risen by 3C."
Re:Put it in perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
From TFA:
"Virtually everyone agrees that the complete disappearance of the 2-mile-thick (3-kilometer-thick) Greenland Ice Sheet would cause an estimated 23-foot (7-meter) rise in global sea levels."
So I guess the History channel was only slightly off.
So we have 12,192 years until all the glacier ice melts in
It is not constant - it doubled in five years (Score:3, Informative)
2 ^ (x / 5)= 6096
(x / 5) log 2 = log 6096
x = 5 log 6096 / log 2
or 63 years.
Global warming / Global dimming (Score:5, Informative)
It's a scary read. Some evidence seems to support that global dimming might be the cause of famine in Africa.
There's a lot about the subject on google. [google.com]
BBC Article (Score:4, Informative)
Btw, it is interesting that if you go to the Science/Nature [bbc.co.uk] section on bbc, there are 8 articles dealing with energy crisis/global warming currently, and that number was higher a few days ago when I first checked.
Finally... (Score:2)
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
not really. they called it that because of the green ice.
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
Greenland Glaciers Growing? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/11
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev
Abstract:
A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites, 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is -2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Re:Greenland Glaciers Growing linked to the NAO (Score:3, Informative)
The accelerated flow of the ice into the ocean, by contrast, is new and apparently related to warmer ocean and maybe meltwater from the surface of the ice flowing down through crevices and lubricating it.
The natural forces are cyclical (aside from the fact that the sun will continue to become warmer until it becomes a red dwarf and swallows the planet, but that's later).
whats the problem? (Score:3, Funny)
Fresh water is lighter than sea water.
Hence, all that is needed is a BIG plastic pipe to move all the fresh water south to irrigate the deserts of North Africa (it's downhill all the way
Wait! I've thought up a nonsense research flaw! (Score:3)
Not Good For Low-Lying Islands (Score:5, Informative)
Islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific ocean have already been experiencing rising sea-levels [stuff.co.nz] over a period of 13 years according to a tide-gauge project run by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology.
The rate of about 6mm (0.236 inches) per year is quite slow, but it is significant for low-lying islands like these ones.
Re:Not Good For Low-Lying Islands (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone know anything about this? Its supposed to be the oldest sea levl mark known, and has shown no rise. Is this bullshit?
Re:Not Good News For New Orleans (Score:3, Interesting)
If we believe in irreversable Global Warming, then we can expect the planet will revert to the warm phase which is about 20 degrees F (10C) on avera
100,000 Year Cycles Are A Given (Score:3, Interesting)
The Earth's circular to elliptical orbit changes, the Earth axis tilt off the Solar plane, and the Precession of the Earth's spin axis all cause changes which seem to be at the root of a 100,000 year cycle. This has been seen in the Vostok ice core samples going back 500,000 years in Antarctic ice by measuring CO2 variations on the repetetive 100,000 year cycles (or nearly so).
Without man's influence these cycles and the "Ice Ages" ocurred regularly and repeatedly, and I propound that they will continue again, and I see nothing man is capable of doing to stop the cycles. Man might speed a cycle up by a few years or decades or slow it down, but I see no chance to "stop it".
Believe me? No. Start with the Milankovitch cycles and other data on this page http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos100-2/clim/>
No matter what the U.N. or the U.S. or all the countries of the world do, the weather will change dramatically, the sea levels will rise and fall, as will CO2 levels, and man will make little dent in this cycle.
Re:100,000 Year Cycles Are A Given (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:100,000 Year Cycles Are A Given (Score:4, Interesting)
We are already in an interglacial (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, global climate changes. But no, it has not changed into the realms we are moving into, at least not within the time span of the evolution of our species, or of almost all species now on the planet. We are moving global climate into new regimes.
The speed of my car changes all the time, too, But that does not mean I can put my foot to the floor whe
And here's the effect of this new information (Score:3, Insightful)
People who have a vested interest in the world not moving to combat global warming (like energy company lobbyists) will cite the fact that the climate has changed in the past, claim this accelerating melting is part of that natural change, and use it as an excuse to do nothing. When the effects of global warming become too sever to ignore any longer, they will feign ignorance, claim noone could have seen it coming, then demand a silver bullet-type solution from the same scientists who have been telling them what needs to be done for decades, but were ignored because the executives possess a shortsightedness bordering on myopia (that is to say, their utter inability to see beyond next quarter's profit goal).
Am I psychic, or just really, really cynical?
Environmental Terrorism! (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1516&cat id=9 [unconfirmedsources.com]
Bruce
Not All Glaciers Melting (Good News From Oregon!) (Score:3, Funny)
Are you worried that melting glaciers may raise ocean levels, inundating coastlines and triggering massive damage?
Fear Not! NASA scientists have discovered a glacier that is not only not melting, but actually growing! [nasa.gov]
It is, of course, the glaciation on Mt. St. Helens. It had been blown away a few years ago, but it is now growing back!!!
So Panic Not! All we need to do is detonate a few thousand volcanos in Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica: problem solved!
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:woo (Score:2, Informative)
no, it's not stupidity, it's skepticism. the earth changes. the climate changes. thirty years ago, it was global cooling, a new ice age. now it's global warming. we don't know how much, if any, we've contributed to it, and, if we do can do anything about it. we m
Re:woo (Score:2)
Re:Skepticism (Score:3, Insightful)
And in the real world, a faceful of high velocity bus is still terminal, no matter what benefits you've managed to stuff in your pockets while it was on its way.
Did you take chemistry in college? (Score:3, Interesting)
We WERE at equilibrium. We have added a new substantial source of CO2, and we are now moving to a new higher equilibrium concentration. Tehjabsolute levels of
BTW, your volcanic CO2 numbers are very, very wrong. Anthropogenic CO2 emissins are more than two orders of magnitde heigher than volcanic emissinons. Total natural emissions of CO2 are about a norderof magnitude higher than anthropogenic inputs. Adnanthropogenic inputs are changing the equilibrium.
http://www.realclimate.org/ [realclimate.org]
Re:woo (Score:2, Funny)
Back the horses up there (Score:2)
Re:woo (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the real data: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb8/sum0203.htm
Re:woo (Score:2)
Re:Move along, nothing to see here... (Score:2)
Re:Use Snow Making Machines to Restore Glaciers (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps running a large series of snow making machines drawing water directly from the ocean, or more ideally a fresh water source that deposits into the ocean, 24/7 may be the answer to lower sea levels.
It wouldn't matter much where in the world this process is done, since water will find its level
Thanks for the laugh. The amount o
Re:How is this doubled?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
"People curious about computers start running Linux. They start writing kernel modules, device drivers, GNU software. They start creating little Lego Mindstorms projects. Eventually, they start overclocking. The effects of overclocking on global warming are rather like the effects of cow methane: if a single cow in Iowa rips one, no matter how bad it smells, it probably won't contribute much to global warming. However, if all the cows on the planet simultaneously fart, we have a problem. In other words, Linux is responsible for global warming. The Film Actor's Guild (F.A.G.) was unavailable for comment at press time, but it is well-documented that Alec Baldwin endorses Linux and encourages members of FAG to use the popular operating system: 'All FAGs should run Linux', he is quoted as saying."
(Sorry, just having a bit of fun.
Re:So is my reasoning here incorrect.... (Score:3, Informative)
The global temperature will still go up overall though. Changes will include an increase in temperature near the equator, and reduced rainfall in the existing temperature zones, causing big effects for farming. Storms will get more powerful, and sea levels will rise.
As with any big complex system, you introduce more energy (temp=energy), the system gets more chaotic. We can't say with
Correct (Score:3, Informative)