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.
At the risk of sounding like a denier, I'm not going to freak out just yet, since it says in the article (and partially in the summary) that this is believed to happen every 150 years or so, last time being 1889.
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.
NASA has been observing the entire ice sheet for only 30 years. But the summit alone has been observed for a longer time, and this is the first time after 140 years, the summit has been observed to melt significantly.
With that much fresh water being added to the North Atlantic, we ought to be talking about the health of the Atlantic Ocean currents that are energized by the temperature difference between equator and polar regions, and the deep water exchange, which is driven by the difference in salinization. Most important of these currents is the Gulf Stream. It stopped several hundred years ago, over the course of a single lifetime, and caused the Little Ice Age in Europe. I've already heard some reports about the speed of the current slowing. An awful lot depends on those currents, and we've heard nary a peep about the implications.
I love how neither the article, nor the summary mention global warming - heck, it's not even in the tags! - but in the first ten posts, half are already decrying the "AGW alarmists".
Hottest in 30 years, since 1889....er 40% melted away, 97%...er wait. What does this really mean?
Oh, that 97% of the top layer of ice exposed to sun and warmth has melted. I am curious...how deep is this melt?
Oh...think that a warm year + drought over North America might, just might lead to a little melting. In fact, if this is the worst drought in 60 years, but only the worst melting in 30 years. Maybe it's not so bad?
LOL
I see a bright future for Greenland. Forget Spain or Greece, take a nice relaxing balmy beach holiday in sunny Greenland. That's where it's going to be at, if you are a property developer looking to build holiday accommodation, resorts, apartments, theme parks, restaurants and cafes. Get in now before the rush. And all that concrete and travelling there by air can only help make the dream come true sooner!
"not seen in 30 years" is not "unprecedented".
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yes, but it keeps traffic up, which allows for increased advertising sales. ;-)
But, but, ,but, he invented the Internet - how did he not control it?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
how about this? We give the global warming deniers a win. With one caveat: everyone has to go on public record whether they are firmly in the denial camp, or have publicly argued for inaction. Then, if at some point in the future, the evidence DOES rise to such a level as to completely erase the deniers legitimacy, we get to kill them all (and their children of course). are they willing to vote with their lives? they sure as hell appear to be willing to vote with poor peoples lives.
So is this weather or climate? Because if it's weather isn't it just the equivalent to having an unusually warm winter in Eastern Europe or something? Did Greenland have an unusually warm winter or an unusually hot summer this year? That wasn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps someone at NASA is in the market for an oceanfront home? If global warming will reduce the market price for oceanfront property I'm all for it.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Finally the Greenland will live up to its name!
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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
According to TFA, they observed this via ice cores, not via some sort of manmade records or anything of that sort (excluding the 30 years of satellite data of course). At this point, they consider this an interesting but non-threatening event, with the proviso that if it happens again in the next year or two, then it will be much more concerning.
From TFA:
Adapt or die.
"Bye-bye, California. Hello, new West Coast. My West Coast. Costa Del Lex. Luthorville. Marina del Lex. Otisburg... Otisburg?"
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Nah. I got a better idea.
How about we just laugh at the global warming deniers while they fry in the heat and storms as their homes are flooded?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
Care to explain the relevance? 30 years of 110000 is a sample size of .03, this is a *potentially* relevant data set, but you cannot draw conclusions without more data.
Hence, we have an observation.
hasn't been seen for more than 140 years.
Stop and think about that for a moment. That means it happened previously, and nothing bad happened, we're all still here, and Florida isn't underwater yet.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
.... they always make me laugh.
What makes me laugh is that people from both sides are trying to take a measly two centuries(roughly) of climate data and make it mean something significant in a world with a history that is several orders of magnitude greater than humanity's entire existence.
I, for one, plan to spend my time, not freaking out or sticking my head in the sand, but instead, I plan to track down the location of the fountain of youth. There I will wait out the years, recording climate data for the next 500 millenia. When I have completed my mission, I will teleport down to the local Spacemart, purchase a "Made in Sol" time machine that was actually built from parts manufactured in the Beta Epsilon system(complete with lead paint), and I will travel back in time to let the /. community know if humanity was really responsible for global warming or not.....
Everyone is really good at rationalizing specific data points like "it's part of a 150 year trend". The problem is there's world wide evidence and not just glacier melts. There's a measurable trend going back to the industrial revolution when the CO2 release started. It accelerated in the 80s as growth in third world countries kicked in. It's everything from glacier melting to weird weather and from sea level rise to a severe drought in the US to the worst one in Australia in several thousand years. What I keep hearing is every time a piece of evidence shows up is "I can explain that". At what point do we accept that all the "I can explain thats" add up to we've got a problem? Long term what we are staring at isn't a hot planet but one that overreacts to a spike in CO2 causing a worse ice age than the last one. Rationalizing is a little like sticking your head in the sand. Each rationalization is another inch. Eventually your head hits China and the planet is still warming whether you like it or not.
"... and this is the first time after 140 years, the summit has been observed to melt significantly."
Define "significantly". According to TFA, the summit was observed to be at or slightly above 0 degrees celsius for a few hours.
That's not enough to melt a decent snowbank in someone's yard "significantly". I doubt the summit had anything to worry about.
Greenland used to be farm land. It was called, "Green" land for a reason. But then about 600 years ago the planet cooled and Greenland farmers had to abandon their land. Harsh, and no, it wasn't because of humans causing climate change. Rather climate change has happened on a regular basis in cycles over the last several billion years. Now it is warming up and can be farms again.
The reality is that during periods of warming there was greater diversity. People need to stop focusing on climate change and focus instead on the real problems like toxic pollution and war. Global Warming is a just a distraction.
Al and Kipper dressed up as strangers and met at a hotel for one hell of a romantic evening. Some say this is why Al comes across stiff as a board as something they were using snapped off and wasn't ever removed. Anyways, it was during one of these sessions that Al lost the remote control pad for the internet. He is no longer able to turn it up or down or off altogether. It is perpetually stuck at the mercy of the programming on it.
...for the Greenlanders.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Depends on the wind condition and humidity dont you think?
You don't know what you're talking about. They never taxed any of those things. They were either banned outright, emissions were limited by regulations.
It's always interesting when an article provides precedence for something it labels unprecedented.
Better known as 318230.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Depends on the wind condition and humidity dont you think?"
That's a fair statement, since ice and snow can sublimate directly into the atmosphere, if the air is dry. But on the other hand, it can do that at 10 below too.
Any chance we can borrow his Tardis and go back and see what rhe Greenland ice sheet was like 500 years ago, 1000, 10000 etc.
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.
My conspiracy theory is that satanists are attempting to open an unholy portal to Hell. Surely that is what will ensue when Slashdot successfully slashdots itself... Right?
The first thing that the Governments can do is abolish daylight saving - we need less daylight not more.
it could still be just a random once in a 100M yr event
The Earth's climate is known not to be stable on that sort of timescale, and in fact even on far shorter timescales (e.g. Ice Ages). Hence there is no practical way of knowing whether such an event is a one-off fluke or an indication of a change in the climate. The possibility is to hope the climate remains stable for the next 1,000+ years and then to see whether it occurs again...but the wait will be a long one! It's probably safe to say that once in a 100 MYr events are unlikely to occur twice in a millenium.
The problem with global warming is not with Florida going underwater. The risk of that is pretty low. Rather, the problem is more tornadoes, typhoons and floods causing massive disruption in theeconomic supply chains, as well as droughts causing widespread famine. It is a very serious, very real, civilisational threat. What will happen when we cannot grow enough food to feed the World?
What will happen when the US cannot grow enough food to feed itself? Invade Canada?
In case you are not trolling, know that we have observation for much longer periods than 30 years: ice cores give use data for hundreds of thousands of years, simply, the mesure is punctual extensive like the satellite data.
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."
Won't all these extra theoretical page views cause even more theoretical global warming?
Fortunately for us, significance has a very precise meaning. The scientific term is meaningless, though, without an hypothesis as a frame of reference.
I have a better approach to the whole argument.
If global warming is true and we do something to stop it, yay.
If global warming is false and we do something but it turns out to just be a weather pattern, yay, I don't have to drink polluted water and breathe smog.
Ummmmm, Greenland was named that because it used to be green back when it was first discovered. Even allowing for travel/investment brochure hyperbole. Just sayin'...
You must have missed the Al Gore show. Indeed the problem IS that Florida and New York will be under water. Displacement was cited as the number one problem from Global Warming.
As for food, the United States was doing find until the politicians/lawyers decided that Ethanol held market value and/or that Monsanto somehow magically pollinated every plant crop in North America. However, I hold little concern for this as I fully see Disney getting Congress to implement new rules that give Disney all rights to copy, trademark, and patents covering anything that could make Disney money; for the good of the public (or the kids).
I know, I sure hate it when I drink CO2. And breathing CO2 is even worse.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So that's why they called him Erik the Red
Play Command HQ online
It's more like a call to action, or at least observation and thought. If you think you're entitled to not give a fuck, you're wrong. Your current self-righteous calm isn't worth shit.
What's wrong with not using more than is there, and not destroying more than can re-generate? What, exactly, is wrong with that?
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.
Umm... one of these facts is not like the other.
I also like to know enough to argue both sides of a contentious issue,
but "Al Gore flies a private jet." is more ad hominem, less scientific fact.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
but "Al Gore flies a private jet." is more ad hominem, less scientific fact.
Indeed, and that makes it all the more delicious when someone gets tied up in knots about it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But it will be orders more when the temperature is more than zero. And remember this not in the middle of some high rise building, but in the middle of a desert, where it much easier for the wind to carry away water.
The universe has existed for billions of years. We've recorded measurements on parts of it for a few hundred years tops. Therefore any and all data-series we have for anything whatsoever are junk and not representative since they cover such a minute fraction of the history.
Kipper? Is he sleeping with herring now? I think you meant Tipper.
"But it will be orders more when the temperature is more than zero."
Actually no, it won't, as anyone who has good experience with winter Chinook winds can attest. It works best when the air is cold, dry, and moving.
The problem is that when the air is warmer, the humidity is also higher, and it's that much harder for sublimation to take place.
Yes, significance DOES have a very precise meaning (I get it you didn't detect the sarcasm in my comment). The issue is that it just doesn't apply in this case.
I don't know anymore, the whole thing seems fishy to me.
Thank you for the correction.
Title: "Unprecedented" vs. Summary "...has not occurred since 1889"
Of course if the title read "Greenland Ice Sheet Melts Again" no one would have read it.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
The earth has never before had 7 Billion (and counting) people on it. Never before has so much beachfront land been built upon. Never before have so many depended upon man-made electricity to get through a normal day.
Oh sure, the Earth has gone through these cycles before, but NEVER when so many people rely on corn that's now shriveling in the field, NEVER when billions could die in flooding, or hurricanes, tornadoes, and other weather-related disasters, NEVER when a few weeks without electricity could cause widespread panic and collapse of 'civilization' as we currently understand it.
Our society has changed dramatically since the last time earth went through these cycles. Heck, it might explain how we went from the gleaming age of Rome and into the Dark Ages -- and we could be headed for another Dark Ages. Are you prepared to have your children living in mud huts, eating rat for breakfast?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Ice cores should be able to resolve the question of whether there are trends in thaw and how they correlate to climate.
I don't understand how people can look for reasons to justify that stuff like this is nothing to worry over and vigorously fight to discredit people who raise it as a concern. Even if there was a small chance that global warming due to human activities was to blame for this, shouldn't we all be concerned? The predictions of the impact to global coastlines due to land-based ice sheets melting is pretty much the same across the board; many millions of people will be directly impacted and displaced. I'd say that a slim chance of that happening is quite concerning and is reason enough to take action to try to get this under control. If this does impact the world as many fear, I hope that those who fought to discredit the vast majority of scientists are remembered in history accordingly.
So I can assume you give a significant portion of your income to third world countries that don't emit CO2 every year?
More pathetic alarmism. Germany is doing something about reducing its carbon footprint, and their economy has been growing ~ 3% per year whilst the rest of the world economy has tanked. Also, 20% of the USA economy is under a carbon tax -- the New York to the north east -- and they've grown relative to the rest of the country, and their power bills have gone /down/.
Gee, doing something about CO2 means giving away money too the third world, so nothing productive can be done --- NOT.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Hey mister, do you mind if we play on your lawn?
You don't know what you're talking about. They never taxed any of those things. They were either banned outright, emissions were limited by regulations.
Acid rain was reduces with emissions trading
CFCs were phased out, by a mandate I believe. The negotiation process looked pretty convoluted, but it happened during the Carter/Reagan/Bush years, although the industry was busy constructing bullshit counter-narratives back in the 60s. All the same stuff about CO2: ozone whole is natural, volcanos are doing it, human activity is insignificant, there is no consensus, scientists have doubts but are afraid to come forward, this will bring about socialism, environmentalists are being hysterical, this will ruin the economy -- seriously, this war on AGW is nothing new. Fred Singer was behind a lot of this. Hence the similarities.
So we have examples of a mandate and an emissions trading scheme.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"What's wrong with not using more than is there, and not destroying more than can re-generate? What, exactly, is wrong with that?"
I'm confident that the average slave would have a neutral or perhaps even negative carbon footprint. That doesn't mean that I want 99.99% of the world's population to live in slavery for the purpose of "sustainability".
"If you think you're entitled to not give a fuck, you're wrong"
I don't give a F*** about "climate change" or your opinion regarding my opinion.
If your "call to action" is having a government bureaucrat rationing energy usage for the little people, you can go straight to hell.
Indeed, what if global warming is a hoax, and we create a better world for nothing?.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If CO2 is the huge apocolypse-causing crisis that the AGW proponents claim it is...
Why have they, for the most part, been at the forefront of the "anti-nuke shut 'em all down NOW" movement for decades?
One could easily come to the conclusion that their aim is not to reduce CO2; their aim is to reduce human access to energy.
It took a thousand years, but it looks like Denmark's about to hit the jackpot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What's unnerving about this is that the world is *already* consuming more foodstuffs than it produces. World food reserves are basically gone... and this has just happened over the past 10 years or so. So on top of the additional price volatility experienced because of dwindling food reserves, now we have a weather event that's going to tip prices higher.
If food reserves were in a healthy state, this drought would be a minor uncomfortable period in terms of food prices, just as the droughts of the 80s were. Instead we're going to have a food price spike far, far higher than general inflation.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Right. So why then do you bother to make up not only one, but TWO strawmen. Awww.
Though I appreciate the irony: If we don't voluntarily ween ourselves from stuff like oil, our options will just keep diminishing. The only ones who have an interest to play for time are the ones in control right now, who will stay mobile even when the rest is flapping about like a fish on water. I dare say you're projecting what you're falling for on me. But hey, that's fine, that's par of the course.
wtf? "fish on water" == "fish out of water", obviously :P
Here is the summery of this article: This melting event is normal, but if it wasn't normal we all should be worried.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
As stated in the very first line, it happened in 1889, BEFORE all the emissions of the 20th century.