Slashdot Mirror


NASA Satellite Measurements Show Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt

NASA reports that measurements taken from orbiting satellites indicate the Greenland ice sheet underwent melting over a larger area than they've seen in 30 years of observations. On July 8, the satellites found evidence that about 40% of the ice sheet's surface had melted. Observations just four days later showed 97% of the surface had melted. "This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland's weather since the end of May. 'Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,' said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate. Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12." Photos also surfaced last week showing the Petermann Glacier in Greenland 'calving' — some very large chunks of it broke off and started to drift away.

7 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting Caveat by Grizzley9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H

    It's scary if you look at a trend of only 30 years. And then you compare it to data that's only around 120 years old and find out it's not so bad. I'm not saying the melting isn't bad, just seems to be presumptions to say "unprecedented" and alarmist to use such language given the number of data points.

  2. Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a different conspiracy theory: Slashdot keeps posting articles guaranteed to rehash the (mostly uninformative) debate between people who support the IPCC conclusions and those who don't, because they hope to spawn a 500-comment shitfest in the comments, and maybe some social-media links, and thereby drive up pageviews.

  3. You are the alarmist. by microbox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bertrand Russell: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are so confident while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

    Now, you seem awfully confident that almost every climate scientist is plain wrong about something. You must be one of those economic alarmists, who believes that reducing carbon emissions will cripple the economy -- the same shrill alarmism that was used against acid rain and CFCs (the ozone hole). In all three cases, the economic alarmists were wrong. Taxes on sulphur, CFC and carbon emissions had a negligible negative effect at most on various economies -- sometimes a net positive, because it spurred new economic activity.

    But continue with your shrill alarmism that addressing climate change will somehow destroy the economy and usher in world communist government. Ye all seem so very confident about it, that you don't even have to learn what scientists and economists have to say on the issue.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  4. This is not time to talk about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During a time when the US is facing its most serious drought since the 1930's, its no time to talk about ice sheets melting or global warming, just like its no time to talk about gun control just after 70 people get shot in a theater. Its not the right time to talk about it! You are welcome to talk about global warming in the middle of the mild winter, or droughts in the rainy season (whenever that is), or shootings and gun control when all is peaceful. A public pandemic is no time to talk about health care, and forest fire season is no time to talk about children playing with matches! People with vested interests could have their vested interests changed. That's just not right.

  5. Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's why we invented maths. Statistically a heatwave like the one in TFA occurs on AVERAGE once in 150yrs, technically if we get a couple more like it in the next decade or so it could still be due to "luck", the same technicality applies even if the entire ice cap melts, it could still be just a random once in a 100M yr event. - The same unreasoning was used by the same immoral stink tanks to convince people that smoking did not cause cancer. A single extreme weather event is obviously not enough to determine a weather pattern, but that is not what they are claiming.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  6. Re:I'm not going to panic just yet... by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When all exceptional wheather events point in the same direction, it stops being "wheather" to be "climate".

    If you were reporting news of the eastern front for a German newspaper after Stalingrad, you could well keep saying "sure, this battle was lost, but this other one was won. In any case, you can't call any particular battle to be an indication of how the war is going!". Except, of course, you can and should. OMany of these individual event are wheather, but the point that climatologists make is that they fall on a pattern: climate is changing, and the planet is becomming hotter. We also have a mechanism for that, the greenhouse effect, and human activities contribute to it significantly.

    Frankly, that this be controversial is a huge mystery to me. But then people will believe the weirdest things if it helps them fit in a group, so...

  7. Re:Who needs science? I have conspiracy theories! by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Believe it or not, I've actually learned a lot discussing global warming with various people here on Slashdot. It has spurred me to read the IPCC report a many other papers.

    It's enough that if I meet anyone out in the real world (not on Slashdot) I can take either side of the debate and crush them with my collection of facts. All I have to do is say, "The oceans have been rising clearly for the last five years" and it will drive a Republican crazy. Or for Democrats, "Al Gore flies a private jet." They go off in a ranty cloud of confusion.

    So thanks to everyone who's attacked me over the years, I hate you but I love you.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."