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."
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.
Haw! Where's the Skeptical Environmentalist now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting times (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes they will melt and sea levels will rise. (Score:2, 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:Which data is correct? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:NAO (Score:1, Interesting)
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 in cost, but it pays itself back in saved energy costs. There are a great many trivial things that can be done (like bothering to better insulate existing homes, using more energy efficient light systems, dressing for the weather rather than according arbitrary social conditioning (and hence saving in both heating and air-conditioning of offices)) that have little or no impact on standards of living, but can make a huge difference in energy consumption if pursued on a broad scale. Reducing energy consumption can be about how to figure out how to do the same or more with less hrough efficiency rather than some blanket reduction of capability.
Jedidiah.
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 Greenland assuming the rate is constant. We still have some time.
Isn't the whole point that the rate has doubled in the last five years and therefore it is not constant?
If the rise in sea levels was
Y=(current year)
R=rise in sea level (in millimeters)
R=(1.2(Y-2005))(.5) so for 2015 the sea level will rise 6mm as a result of the glacial melt in Greenland, not half a millimeter.
Unfortunately my math skills are too rusty right now to take the amount of sea level gain we would experience from the entire glacier melting: 7010.4mm and working this out into a predicted year it would happen based on a constant acceleration of the amount of melting occuring, and I should be able to: I'm sure that was covered in Algrbra II in high school.
As far as pedicting the sinking of New York, one would have to take this into figures for the rest of the sea level rise. Remember, the Atlantic only rose
Re:Er, don't throw away your lifevest just yet (Score:1, Interesting)
The ice is most certainly thickening in the center, something that is most peculiar considering the claims made by folks intent on assuming humans are responsible for global climate change. For heavens sake, why is everyone so arrogant to think that our species is capable of uprooting the climate cycle of a [b]planet[/b]?
We should be conserving energy and controlling emissions, but we do not need to start assuming things that are still widely debated. In fact, we should be especially hesitant to believe any claims on how to maintain the status quo. We've not been so successful at manipulating nature thus far, so better we get re-acquainted with coexisting with it.
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-earth/vars un.html [stanford.edu]
Mike Flaugher: It is my personal belief that with the beginning of Sunspot Cycle 23, we MAY be entering into a period of climate disturbance similar to that in the early 1800's, and POSSIBLY like that of the three major disturbances of the last millennium, the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder Minimums. The latter possibility we will not know with certainty for several decades. Solar Cycle 23, however, appears at this time poised to begin a major downshift in solar levels which may well cause reactions in the stratosphere and, through mechanisms now being studied as illustrated in some of the articles above, a series of reactions in the lower atmosphere. I believe that the manifestation of these changes may soon be felt as a shifting of weather patterns of moisture, dryness, and temperature.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Ooops. How are we going to turn down the Sun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period [wikipedia.org]
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was an unusually warm period during the European Medieval period, lasting from about the 10th century to about the 14th century. It has been argued a better name would be the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. The MWP is often involved in contentious discussions of global warming and the greenhouse effect.
Ooops. We've obviously already have been there - much to the chagrin of one or the other faction trying to justify social change by predicting dire climatic consequences. These factions - as the Wikipedia goes on - of course are hard at work trying to find ways to paint the current warming trend as something novel and unique even in view of literally rock-solid past evidence. The Wikipedia is another btw another good starting point for the debate between the global cooling/warming factions and the CO2 doomsday prophets.
While we're at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Opt imum [wikipedia.org]
Some more warming in timeframe of 9000 to 5000 years B.P (Before present, before 1950 CE that is):
The Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypisthermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.
Temperature variations during the
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)
Simply... (Score:3, Interesting)
>the climate cycle of a [b]planet[/b]?
Re:A couple of things to think about before... (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems so! Clearly there was precious little ice floating around in those oceans 100M years ago, and I'd hazard a guess that sea levels were many metres higher than today.
Interestingly, the scientists concerned drew the alarming conclusion that the current CO2-induced global warming may turn out to be much worse than is currently predicted. From the article:
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/index.php?p=160 [realclimate.org]
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html [radix.net]
This folloing info is from the second URL
>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million
by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to
315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling]
[Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:
* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,
p 44-45] [White]
* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].
* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].
* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43]
[Siegenthaler]
* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.
* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
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 average warmer than now and which the planet enjoyed for oh about +85% of the last 500+ million years. This will melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm [scotese.com]
There is no evidence to suggest this will happen. Most likely we are simply in an interglacial and there will be another glacial cycle just as there has been in the past.
If we reject the idea of the Global Warming, then this senerio - if the planet warms up a little for a short while then it will just delay the onset of the next ice age.
During the last ice age there were glaciers as thick as the Matterhorn in Switzerland is high. Toronto was covered by more than a mile of ice. That is a lot of ice and it wouldn't be very nice to live in a world like this.
The thing is that whoever is correct, there is little that mankind can do about it. If we have a warming trend for a while then some islands may be flooded and Florida might need to hire some Dutch engineers. Britain may once again be able to tend vinyards. If we have global cooling for a while as occured during the little ice age then we may find that we won't have enough food to eat.
A far more pressing problem is that mankind is buring fossil fuels at a totally unsustainable rate. IMHO we are going to be facing the peak of world oil production within a couple years and when this happens, $70 oil is going to look real cheap.
So I would suggest that rather than worry about global warming, we should instead prepare for a world with less oil and gas. This will probably have the side effect of reducing CO2 emissions. If anyone considers this a positive outcome then fine.
North America peaked in natural gas production in 2001. Since that time - what has the population of North America done to cope?
The answer is pretty much nothing. A huge part of the fertilizer industry has been shut down. Now part of the plastics industry will follow suit. The price of Natural Gas goes up and up (and temporarily down for now - yes I DO know about gas in storage levels) and still people talk about building more gas fired electricity stations. Ontario is still thinking there is no issue and they can have all the gas they want and I read New York State is also imbued with a high level of polyanna thinking.
The last major company to think this way was Calpine. They are in bankruptcy now. If we look at their history we will find that a few years back their shares were trading at $45 bux. They had more gas turbines on order than could be built in the USA. They were planning on burning most of the North American gas supplies all by themselves. The market LOVED THEM.
I do not subscribe to the fears of Global Warming. However I will say again - those who do should get off their butts and do something about it. Insulate your homes. Shut off your furnaces. Stop driving your cars.
Do something that counts, something that will reduce your demand for fossil fuels. If you want to justify it by citing Global warming then be my guest. But however you justify it - DO SOMETHING. Tear a wall down in your house and use some spare time to put R50 insualtion into it. That alone will accomplish far more than wasting your time worrying about something you can do nothing about.
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 cells are different story, they require an effective catalyst in order to split H2's covalent bond.
However there are alternatives to H2 fuel cells.
...Current generation of NG combined cycle power plants can be adapted to burn H2 at fairly high efficiency, ~63%.