Greenland ice cap melting faster than ever
November 12, 2009.jpg)
A glacier off the coast of Greenland. Photo by Jonathan Bamber
Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is loosing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.
This mass loss is equally distributed between increased iceberg production, driven by acceleration of Greenland's fast-flowing outlet glaciers, and increased meltwater production at the ice sheet surface. Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss to 273 Gt per year (1 Gt is the mass of 1 cubic kilometre of water), in the period 2006-2008, which represents 0.75 mm of global sea level rise per year.
Professor Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol and an author on the paper said: "It is clear from these results that mass loss from Greenland has been accelerating since the late 1990s and the underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future. We have produced agreement between two totally independent estimates, giving us a lot of confidence in the numbers and our inferences about the processes".
The Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to cause a global sea level rise of seven metres. Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000.
At the same time that surface melting started to increase around 1996, snowfall on the ice sheet also increased at approximately the same rate, masking surface mass losses for nearly a decade. Moreover, a significant part of the additional meltwater refroze in the cold snowpack that covers the ice sheet. Without these moderating effects, post-1996 Greenland mass loss would have been double the amount of mass loss observed now.
-
Antarctic Ice Loss
Jan 13, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Greenland ice melting faster than thought
Feb 17, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Freshwater runoff from the Greenland Ice Sheet will more than double by the end of the century
Jun 12, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Intensified ice sheet movements do not affect rising sea levels
Jul 08, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Greenland's rising air temperatures drive ice loss at surface and beyond
Feb 20, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (31) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
Discrepancy between oxygen and carbon-dioxide levels
Feb 09, 2012
-
where gems are found in the world
Feb 09, 2012
-
Wind Waves in Reservoir ~ Wind run-up and Wind set-up
Feb 08, 2012
-
Balance of oxygen in the atmosphere
Feb 01, 2012
-
The case for a methanol-based economy
Jan 30, 2012
-
Weather in a rotating cylinder
Jan 25, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Humans may have helped the decline of African rainforests 3000 years ago
(PhysOrg.com) -- Large areas of rainforests in Central Africa mysteriously disappeared over three thousand years ago, to be replaced by savannas. The prevailing theory has been that the cause was a change ...
16 hours ago |
4.2 / 5 (9) |
11
|
Could Venus be shifting gear?
(PhysOrg.com) -- ESA’s Venus Express spacecraft has discovered that our cloud-covered neighbour spins a little slower than previously measured. Peering through the dense atmosphere in the infrared, the ...
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
12 hours ago |
5 / 5 (7) |
7
|
NASA sees wide-eyed cyclone Jasmine
Cyclone Jasmine's eye has opened wider on NASA satellite imagery, as it moves through the Southern Pacific Ocean.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
4 hours ago |
2 / 5 (1) |
1
NASA sees Giovanna reach cyclone strength, threaten Madagascar
Tropical Storm 12S built up steam and became a cyclone on February 10, 2012 as NASA's Terra satellite passed overhead. Residents of east-central Madagascar should prepare for this cyclone to make landfall ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
4 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
Mars Science Laboratory computer issue resolved
(PhysOrg.com) -- Engineers have found the root cause of a computer reset that occurred two months ago on NASA's Mars Science Laboratory and have determined how to correct it.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
13 hours ago |
4.7 / 5 (6) |
3
|
Google users warned of threat to smartphone wallets
Users of Google smartphone wallets were being warned on Friday that there is a way to crack pass codes intended to thwart thieves from going on illicit shopping sprees.
Anonymous knocks CIA website offline (Update)
The website of the Central Intelligence Agency was inaccessible on Friday after the hacker group Anonymous claimed to have knocked it offline.
Complex wiring of the nervous system may rely on a just a handful of genes and proteins
Researchers at the Salk Institute have discovered a startling feature of early brain development that helps to explain how complex neuron wiring patterns are programmed using just a handful of critical genes. ...
New error-correcting codes guarantee the fastest possible rate of data transmission
Error-correcting codes are one of the triumphs of the digital age. They’re a way of encoding information so that it can be transmitted across a communication channel — such as an optical fiber o ...
The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males
A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...
Putting the squeeze on planets outside our solar system
(PhysOrg.com) -- Using high-powered lasers, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and collaborators discovered that molten magnesium silicate undergoes a phase change in the liquid state, abruptly ...
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (13)
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (16)
If I ate dirt, and then puked, would you ask me to demonstrate that the dirt made me puke? No. The burden of proof is on the one who doubts the glaringly obvious. If I pump megatons of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and it starts to get hotter, then I ask you: show me that the warming is not caused by the greenhouse gas.
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (16)
Hahahahahahah! The world is indeed in very bad shape - not from global warming but from naive, gullible people like yourself who blindly follow politicians and the media.
The world has entered a cooling period for the past decade. Last month was one of the coldest on record. The proof is not much of a burden...take a walk outside and use your senses.
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 3.1 / 5 (15)
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (15)
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (9)
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (11)
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (9)
What underlying causes? The radiosonde data (pre-"correction") shows no warming of the troposphere which is a crucial requirement of greenhouse warming. Recently, the IPCC announced that it didn't even have its raw data set, making its work entirely non-peer reviewable (and thus non-scientific.) Such a gaffe is simply staggering.
Incidentally, the increase in a few ppm of CO2 were never, by themselves, enough to cause significant global warming (though increased carbolic acid in the ocean may be problematic.) AGW required a forcing effect from increased atmospheric H2O to magnify it.
Also, if you remove a glacier from a continent there's going to be some continental rebound, which will mitigate the effect on sea level, similar to how an ice cube melting in a cup of water does not raise the water level. Doubly so for any glaciers which were not over land to begin with.
Nov 12, 2009
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (8)
But does it really matter what it is directly attributable to? It seems incontrovertible from this research that the Greenland ice sheet is melting at an accelerating rate - you don't appear to be in denial of this (and if you are, you should present your research results to counter those reported).
This melt could be caused by global warming - it appears to be the case, viz. "Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss". This may or may not be a long-term trend. Global warming may or may not be caused by human activity. Time will tell on both of these.
If we think we are causing it and take counter measures but it turns out we weren't causing it after all, where's the harm exactly? And are you prepared to take the alternative risk? (Do you live in a low-lying area? I'd be a little worried if I did, regardless of cause.)
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (12)
I also note that Physorg had an article 2 months ago which stated that loss of Greenland's ice mass was slowing.
http://www.physor...271.html
Again, please explain.
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (10)
If it were a matter of supporting and streamlining nuclear power, supporting nuclear fuel reprocessing, advancing fusion research and iron fertilization of the earth's oceans "dead zones", I'd agree with you. These are directions we would justifiably go anyways. The problem is that the 'countermeasures' often involve hundreds of billions of dollars of inefficiency introduced into the economy and dramatically increased, internationally regulated control of the world's economy. Enron was a huge proponent of the carbon vouchers trading scheme, and there are going to be people making a lot of money for no added productivity from such a setup.
If we are facing a high likelihood of a catastrophe that will wipe out most of the human race, then such measures are reasonable. But most indications are that this simply isn't even a remotely probable outcome
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
Canman, I like how you used this article as fact, seeing as, and this is a direct quote from the article: "In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends"
So, no more scientists? Journalist and statisticians will tell us the truth!
/sarcasm
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (9)
Oh no it seems like there was global warming back then! Please eskimos, stop your polluting ways!
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
Yeah Canman, the media tells us so it must be true? Well I was brought up being told never to trust a politician and to take what the media say with a pinch of salt. Since this whole charade started with a politician and has been forced on the public by the media, I assume it whould be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Plus the fact that the best "solution" being spoke at the moment is a tax, doesn't that make you suspicious? How will rich politicians/bankers = less greenhouse gases? It won't, it'll only deter the lower classes from burning energy and cost the middle classes. A simple change in legislation would do more good than a CO2 Tax ever will yet this is the road they seem to be heading down yet you follow without question, wake up ffs!
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
Maybe your right; thousands of the worlds top scientists who have been trained in seeking the truth their adult lives have all just suddenly become confused, or worse, are all conspiring to obtain more grant money by making it sound like the end of the world is near (even though they already have tenured, cush jobs).
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
I think maybe you are confusing "politician" with "statistician". It's ok to trust the statisticians, they have nothing to gain by fooling you.
As far as trusting the media, wasn't that the purpose of commisioning several independant statisticians? Remove chances of bias or collusion?
At any rate, I have a feeling you believe the media more than you think. Did you only believe 9/11 happened when you talked to a personal witness or you travelled to see for yourself. Do you really know who the president is right now?
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
We are not suggesting that the temperature has been constant for the last 100,000 years. We are suggesting that the current warming is in part due to human activity.
By the way, if there was anthropogenic global warming in the middle ages, it was likey from the deforestation of what is now modern Europe. (digging up forests releases alot of co2).
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I suppose that "proof of the senses" would call into question the theory of the spherical earth and the heliocentric theory as well. Ah well, they are only "theories", right?
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (6)
Nov 13, 2009
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Actually, AGW is pretty clear and emphatic in stating that the past, current and future warming trend is entirely due to human activity. Anthropogenic, beginning in humans.
The viability of the notion that we can do anything to ameliorate global warming with carbon shuffling depends on this assertion.
You are really the first AGW proponent I think I've ever heard even mistakenly suggest that there could be something else playing a part besides CO2. This is obviously because once that ground is given it must be demonstrated how man's role is quantified and that we have quantified all other factors, and when no one can, everyone will realize what shaky ground the AGW house of cards stands on.
Nov 14, 2009
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
The models used by the IPCC require positive feedback from H20. Themodel are built on the premise that relative humidity in the upper tropical troposhere remains constant as the air warms [i.e. the specific humidity - mass of H20 per kg of air] increases].
One minor problem! The specific humidity of the upper tropical troposphere has been systematically decreasing over the last 50 years.
Net outcome: NO CO2-induced global warming.
End of arguement.
Nov 14, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Have you been down the beach lately?
Instead of quoting others why not look for yourselves, try talking to people who live in coastal areas and tell them that the sea isn't rising.
Has anyone seen Tu Valu lately?
Nov 15, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
I am "ready to believe" that increasing CO2 by a few ppm could warm the environment significantly, given evidence. Lack of tropospheric warming, however, indicates that this isn't the predominant cause of the current warming. Or do you have some entirely new model for CO2 increasing atmospheric H2O (which is required for significant warming) leading to greenhouse warming that does not involve tropospheric warming?
Similarly, increases in sea levels have been much more modest than predicted. If you'd like to contribute an alternative theory for why, go ahead. But continental rebound is an observed trend.
http://en.wikiped...rebound.
So yes, sea levels are rising to an extent, but not near the rate previously predicted.
Scientists are not a priesthood, nor should we trust them if they were. If the IPCC's data is not peer reviewable, and it is not, then what they are doing is not science, plain and simple.
Nov 16, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Man made CO2 is only responsible for 3-4% of all the CO2 generated in the world each year. The world wide CO2 is rising about 1-2 ppm a year, 3-4% of this is 0.03-0.06 ppm. If we cut the man made CO2 by 100% the earth would only warm by 0.01°C in 100 years, by then we'll all be dead, and whatever was going to happen will have happened unless you can figure out how to stop the 96-97% of CO2 that isn't man made!
Nov 26, 2009
Rank: not rated yet