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."
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.
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 that civilizations CAN affect the environment around them to the point that their civilization becomes unsustainable.
I don't know what sort of science fiction you've been reading, but global warming isn't going to make the Earth uninhabitable, or even remotely so. That sort of thing is nothing more than alarmist bullshit.
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
No need to find another planet; this one will be just fine. All we have to do is what we humans do best - ADAPT. I radical concept for some, but one the rest of us have mastered over the course of several million years.
Max
Re:Why is this Important? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a good thing your doctor doesn't take that approach. "I don't care who or what is causing this allergic reation. What I want are some realistic ways to mitigate the effects." It's true that you can cure symptoms without addressing the underlying cause. But it's still a good idea to know what the underlying cause *is* because sometimes, dealing with that is much easier (read: "more realistic") than dealing with its effects directly. And if it turns out to be harder? Oh, well. But at least you know it will be harder because you know what the cause was.
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 age anytime soon unless we want to. That's another debate.
If I have enough energy, I can grow my own food, make my own air, purify my own water. The only thing needed is energy, and lots of it. The realistic fact is there is enough coal and nuclear energy to sustain western civilization for the next 100 years or more; there is unlimited solar power available; and there's the fusion wildcard. There's potential for new energy sources from the quantum vacuum itself. (see: casimir effect)
The knowledge to work with modern engineering is duplicated in every university in the world.
It's a shame the planet is going to suffer. But you know what? We're products of this planet. We're part of nature. If it gets bad enough outside, I'll live in my air conditioned, dehumified cave. Sucking energy out of the wind along the way.
If you want to do something postive for the planet, don't have children, or only have one. That will have a more far-reaching impact than anything else.
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:There will be plenty of posts talking about... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 freedom with regards to past line fit data (real temperature measurements)? And is it anywhere close to 1? How about when you take the real standard deviations from the tree trunk measurements (which are very large)?
Science can't predict the future temperature of the Earth yet. There are many hypotheses, but that's it. Temperature prediction is about on the same resolution as saying that we know the gravitation free fall acceleration is (9.8 +/- 10) m/s^2.
Re:NAO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:its not global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Invade them! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 living?
* If you take, for example, the EuroStar from London to Paris instead of flying, you not only use a lot less energy, but also save a few hours of travelling time.
* Hypothetically, if London had a public transport system that could cope with the demands, millions of hours stuck in traffic could be replaced with comfortable train journeys. Granted, that's not happening, but not because it's impossible.
* LCD monitors use a lot less energy than CRTs; I've never heard that described as a downgrade.
* Further examples left as an exercise to the reader.
> 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.
You may be right, but if you think humanity will find it easier to colonise mars than to fix up the environment here, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.
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?
Re:its not global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's more of a case that people just don't think before they open their mouths.
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 when I'm already doing 75 mph, and expect things to remain all right for very long.
Re:NAO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:woo (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Right concern, wrong conclusions (Score:3, Insightful)
(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 not the same as reducing energy use. We can use all the wind power we want (1.2 TW available in the CONUS alone). We can use nuclear. We can do something about sources of nitrous oxide and methane (a bugaboo that hits Europe hard). We can even burn coal as long as we stuff the carbon back underground where it came from. We can wrap our houses in really good insulation to keep heat in instead of burning fuel to replace losses.
Oh, definitely true. The thing to do is use the same capabilities which let us change things so far in the direction they've gone, and instead use them to change things back.Have you looked at the Keeling curve? The seasonal swings in CO2 concentration are still much bigger than the annual rise. If we could grab enough of that carbon before it goes back into the atmosphere and stash it away, we could level the trend. Think about possibilities for a while, and study (starting with chem and physics). No telling what you might come up with.
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.
Re:woo (Score:2, Insightful)