Slashdot Mirror
Greenland Glaciers Melting Much Faster
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."
This sounds like Greenland's problem, not ours. We need to start litigation to force Greenland to stop this harmful dumping of ice into the ocean.
But during these past 5 years, the favored phase of the NAO has been negative, which is associated with ridging into Greenland (translating into warmer temperatures there) while Europe and the eastern United States is colder.
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.
Let's invade Greenland for insulting our state religion by allowing science to accurately predict events in their country.
1) The fact that we need to do something now to save the world before its too late!
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.
- Tempestdata
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.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
Up until just recently, pretty much everyone (even the staunchest environmentalists) thought that the Greenland sheet was quite stable. This does not bode well for the fans of that lovable dane, Bjørn Lomberg, the skeptical environmentalist. As I recall, a good bit of his "evidence" was based on the relative stability, and even mass-increase, of the Greenland sheet - which now seems pretty much debunked by this news. Where's the ice stable now, Mr. Head-in-the-sand? Perhaps Antartica yet bears out your theory? In any case, Denmark lies pretty pretty close to sealevel, as I recall.
Your assertion contradicts the data. Can you give me a reference to back up your claim?
l As you can see, Iceland's glaciers are in a state of retreat.
Here is the real data: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb8/sum0203.htm
The ESA has data showing Greenland's ice mass getting bigger._ icesheet_growing.html?4112005
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.
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.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4720536. stm
Btw, it is interesting that if you go to the Science/Nature 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.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/es
Here is an article published last year:
1 5356v1
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.
i dont care how silly and untrue that statement is .. you are insulting my race, and culture with a bigotted statement.
thank you for thoughts
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
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.
Islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific ocean have already been experiencing rising sea-levels 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.
... taking off your sandals and striking yourselfon the head until you bleed:
http://www.physorg.com/news10978.html
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
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
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
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
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
The Greenland Ice Cores showed changes in climate in eons past which suggested changes in ocean level that could have been many meters change in JUST 10-20 YEARS. So the prior record does show changes "different in degree to any previous change that can be measured or inferred." as you put it. Thus I postulate that our political entities of the U.N. and individual country's governments of the world are NOT the ones to be issuing the demands on people for change. We are only a short decade or two into documenting what is going on, and still have a long way to go. It is a long stretch between seeing a "Super Nova" (like at Galileo's time) and then finally having the knowledge and experience to be able to model and know the basis for what happens with a Super Nova. We know change in ice caps are ocurring, but putting them in perspective, understanding their true nature (including how the temperature change at the surface over say a century, affects the base of the ice hundreds-thousands of feet below. Heck, we still have permafrost in some U.S. and Canadian locations a few feet underground from the last ice age. Seeing is one thing. Understanding true causation is ENTIRELY ANOTHER THING.
Come on, now you're just being lazy. Put some effort into it.
:-))
"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.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.