backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by juserbogus.. on May 24 at 1:43 PM


Greenland's 2 km thick ice cap usually undergoes seasonal ice melt. However, recently the melts have become more pronounced and the ice appears to be gradually thinning.  (Source: France 24)

A NASA satellite image shows the melting ice (light gray). An especially fast thinning region of ice (indicated by the arrow, darker gray) is also seen in the image.  (Source: NASA)
NASA is keeping a careful eye on Greenland's ice sheet

There have definitely been some major shifts in the Earth's climate in recent years, but the jury is still out on exactly who or what is to blame.  The world's largest bodies of ice are the polar ice caps, the Greenland ice sheet, and the Himalayan Mountain glaciers. 

Antarctica has had cold temperatures and appeared to gain ice in recent years.  However, a 2009
Nature Geoscience study claims that satellite data indicates that the continent's East ice-sheet, previously thought to be growing, is actually shrinking.  

While the topic of whether Antarctica is losing or gaining ice is debatable, ice loss in the Northern Hemisphere is more clear cut.  The Asian Himalayas and European Alps have both shown shrinking ice area.  And ice cover over the North Pole, while fluctuating annually and seasonally has shown a clear decreasing trend in recent years.

However, perhaps the most pronounced and most concerning ice loss is occurring in Greenland.  According to a new study by the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS), there's new evidence that Greenland's melt is accelerating.

While ice area is one measurement frequently used to estimate ice loss or gain, it often falls short for failing to account for ice thickness and density.  Researchers at the University of Miami instead examined land rise, a lesser known effect of ice melt.

Greenland's 2 km thick ice cap pushes down on the land, depressing it.  As the ice has melted, the land, like a gigantic spring has slowly pushed upwards.  Currently, parts of Greenland are rising at a rate of 1 inch per year, and may reach a rate of 2 inches per year by 2025 if current acceleration continues.

Shimon Wdowinski, research associate professor in the University of Miami RSMAS comments, "It's been known for several years that climate change is contributing to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet.  Even more surprising, the rise seems to be accelerating, implying that melting is accelerating.  Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator of ice loss."

Greenland's ice melt is a bigger concern than polar ice melt or gain, as sea ice changes do not have the major effect on global sea levels that land ice melt does.  There's much concern than melt from the Himalayas and Greenland may cause flooding of low lying regions if current melting rates continue.

The abstract of the study can be found here.  The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA.

The global picture of climate change is only the start of the story, though.  Wherever you stand in the climate debate, there's a need to develop a more accurate understanding of exactly what factors are dictating our shifting global climate.  In the process, we will hopefully gain an understanding of whether man can somehow impact these factors or, alternatively, adjust globally to a shifting climate.  

The simplest solution seems to be to shift to what ever regions are most arable -- much as mankind has done throughout history.  However, there's many more aspects of the problem.  Climate change and attempts to "solve" it will likely reach the scale of trillions in investment.  Thus its critical not to make the wrong move, or a hasty one.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So does this mean that...
By lennylim on 5/19/2010 3:30:03 PM , Rating: 4
Greenland may soon live up to its name?




RE: So does this mean that...
By Anoxanmore on 5/19/2010 3:52:04 PM , Rating: 3
Lets hope not, the Vikings might come back ;)


RE: So does this mean that...
By ClownPuncher on 5/19/2010 4:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
Come back? Where did we go?


RE: So does this mean that...
By 67STANG on 5/19/2010 4:51:46 PM , Rating: 4
Capital One credit card commercials?


RE: So does this mean that...
By MegaHustler on 5/19/2010 5:16:36 PM , Rating: 4
Hey, it's honest work man. We gotta do what we gotta do to survive these days. The market for pillaging is just not what it used to be. Not to mention the Somalians have got us completely cornered on piracy.

Also, it doesn't help that it takes forever to commute to work in a longboat...


RE: So does this mean that...
By Indianapolis on 5/20/2010 7:40:37 PM , Rating: 1
Really? With the pacifist Obama in charge of America's defenses, I don't think there's ever been a better time to invade. Afterall, just because you're wearing a horned helmet and cruising the coastliine in a longboat doesn't give the police the right to profile you.

And if you do somehow get caught, Obama will even have the taxpayers pay for one of his lawyer buddies to paint you as a victim. Vikings never had it so good!


RE: So does this mean that...
By Ristogod on 5/20/2010 9:19:19 AM , Rating: 2
Minnesota


RE: So does this mean that...
RE: So does this mean that...
By mattclary on 5/20/2010 8:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The real story behind the name is given in Erik the Red's Saga, based on oral tradition and written down in the early thirteenth century in Iceland. After the Icelandic landnám was over, Erik the Red and his father Thorvald were forced to leave Norway because one or both of them was involved in killings (details are not given). After Thorvald died, Erik was involved in yet more killings, for which his punishment was three years' vacation--er, I mean banishment from Iceland. (And you thought O. J. got off easy.) He used the time to explore the rumored lands to the west. When his term of banishment expired, he returned to Icleand to invite his neighbors and friends to settle the new country with him. He purposely chose the pleasant name Grænland ("green land") to attract settlers, but the choice wasn't exactly misleading.


RE: So does this mean that...
By gregpet on 5/20/2010 1:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe a little IRONY here!

From Wiki artcle Medieval Warm Period (950AD-1250AD)
quote:
The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north. Around 1000AD the climate was sufficiently warm for the north of Newfoundland to support a Viking colony and led to the descriptor "Vinland". The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that lasted until the 19th century, and the Viking settlements eventually died out.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period


RE: So does this mean that...
By FoxFour on 5/20/2010 1:29:32 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should do a little bit of research into Greenland... there is a good-sized chunk that is absolutely gorgeous during the summer.


Way overdue
By Exodite on 5/20/2010 4:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
There's been talk and concern about the water running under the Greenland icecap and undermining it for some time.

Sad as it may be for the world at large I, too, hope it does hurry up and melt.

In part due humanity in general being unable to fully appreciate and adapt to changing conditions until we're at significant and immediate risk to our own life and health and I believe that a vanishing icecap on Greenland may just be enough.

The other advantage would be that the flood of fresh water dropped into the ocean could very well kill of the gulf stream, which feeds warm water to northern Europe, and finally give us back the winters that have been successively taken from us.

Living in northern Sweden I find it ridiculous that I have to keep my fingers crossed to even have a smattering of snow at Christmas.

I suppose the final concern, if you can call it that, would be to shut up all the assclowns who's sole purpose in life is to argue who's to blame rather than doing anything about it.

I'll consider that a pure bonus perk though.




RE: Way overdue
By HotFoot on 5/20/2010 10:34:27 AM , Rating: 2
It will not be enough.

Even if we can eventually agree that the climate is warming, we haven't yet really started the debate as to why.

On both sides, half-truths and outright lies get repeated over and over until they're just accepted.


RE: Way overdue
By JediJeb on 5/20/2010 11:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
Most would agree that the climate is changing, it always has and always will because it is not static(even though most people wish it was). The debate is over what is causing it. I happen to believe it is more a natural process than a man caused one, mainly because the predictions based on a man caused warming have been terribly off compared to what has actually happened. Another thing that turns me against the man caused theory is the way those who promote it most live. Just like Al Gore saying man's use of carbon to produce energy is the main cause yet he just bought another huge house instead of a small energy efficient one, and it is located right on the coast in California. If he really believed in rapid warming and sea rise why would he buy a house near the water?

The big problem is that nothing is being done to prepare for the future if the warming is a natural process. Everyone wants to focus on the cause but noone wants to think about preparing to deal with the outcome. Spending trillions of dollars to reduce our carbon output may or may not have any effect at all on the problem, if it doesn't then that is just wasted money that could have been spent on preparing to deal with the situations that will be facing us in the future. It is almost as if governments want it to be man made because then they can lay the blame on someone else when they fail to take the actions needed to prepare for the eventual outcome. If sea levels are going to rise and coastal cities will need to be moved, current governments want to pass that off to future leaders so their not responsible. If the money is spent to move cities then there will be no money for politicians to pad their pockets or build monuments to themselves. Let's stop bickering about the blame because in the end at least half is going to be on nature if not all of it, and you can't sue or legislate nature into behaving as you wish. Politicians need to learn that sometimes there are things they just can't control and must learn to work with and around those things to progress into the future with success.


RE: Way overdue
By gregpet on 5/20/2010 1:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Until someone can explain the medieval warming period I call BS to a 100% human cause to whatever warming we may (or may not) be experiencing.


RE: Way overdue
By juserbogus on 5/24/2010 1:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
do you have any evidence that the medieval warming period was anything but regional?


RE: Way overdue
By Grabo on 5/20/2010 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
Find one climate scientist so says the climate hasn't gotten warmer over the last 200 years?
'We haven't really started the debate as to why' - are you joking?

Carbon occurs naturally in the atmosphere (without humans' help), the thing is that, like with everything, a balance exists, so you can't put as much carbon as you'd like up there(or in the ocean, or anywhere else) and expect nothing to happen. The same goes for every other component of a natural system.
But carbon is the hot potato since no one, and I mean literally no one, disputes that co2 is a greenhouse gas.


RE: Way overdue
By HotFoot on 5/20/2010 5:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
I meant "we" as on these forums. It seems to me that a large portion of the people posting strongly against the idea of AGW equally like to point to evidence that the world is not warming as to what would be the cause of warming. It is difficult to point to any data here, and not be told that you're cherry-picking based on one thing or another.

For instance, M. Andrews wrote an article about a single measurement location in Antartica that was showing abnormally high results for the past short period. I replied with a reference to a global survey averaging surface temperatures over several months, covering land and sea - covering the same period of time but showing the 2nd warmest record for that season. The reply was that the data I referred to wasn't trustworthy or didn't matter for a number of reasons, including that it was only surface temperature.

These forums aren't necessarily a fantastic representation of political will across the globe, but I think the scientists can agree unanimously all they want if the public and governments aren't convinced then serious action won't be taken.

I agree with an above post that perhaps we should be looking more into what to do in response to global warming rather than trying to prevent it. The problem there is that predicting the implications of global warming - seems to me - is no easier than figuring out what's causing it in the first place, or estimating what impact CO2 may have. It's all based on these models that, while complex, are very limited compared to what's really happening.

How would we prepare for, say, extended drought in the mid-west? I think of Vegas and it's growth rate and I realise we don't exactly have the conditions in place to make us think that water scarcity is a serious concern.


RE: Way overdue
By Grabo on 5/21/2010 2:07:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reply was that the data I referred to wasn't trustworthy or didn't matter for a number of reasons, including that it was only surface temperature.


Yeah well, arguing with Masher is what it is. He finds singular voices and touts them over entire institutions, and if you reply with an article that is a sort of summary of several peer-reviewed papers, links included, he will discredit you for refereing to a 'lay man's article'.

quote:
These forums aren't necessarily a fantastic representation of political will across the globe


I sincerely hope they aren't.

The majority of posters on DT appear to share Masher's views. *Shrug*, I'm about as lopsided I guess, but I'd like to think that referring to the NSIDC and NASA and any country's meteorological orgs isn't referring to liars and bullies.

Your point on Vegas is, I guess, that people living in the desert know local water doesn't exist in abundance, though water shortages seldom appear, so they don't care overly much? Not too familiar with water conditions in Vegas I'm afraid.

quote:
I agree with an above post that perhaps we should be looking more into what to do in response to global warming rather than trying to prevent it.


Atmospheric co2 takes a long time to disappear, so we should focus on trying to halt the damage being done as well as figure out how to deal with changes in the environment, preferrably before they happen, but yes, climate is tricky to predict.


RE: Way overdue
By HotFoot on 5/21/2010 10:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
What I meant about Vegas is that I don't think it's a sustainable development. The rampant pace of growth, IMO, lacks the kind of long-term vision and careful management that would be required in order to effectively, in a coordinated fashion, take measures to either mitigate AGW or deal with whatever implications a warmer climate may have.

I suppose that doesn't come off as a great vote of confidence in our species/society as whole to deal with issues of this nature.

I often think of the situation of land usage in ancient Greece. Cities sprouted up, quite naturally, where it was most convenient - in locations with access to fresh water and around marketplaces within easy reach of production (mostly farms). The cities grew and grew, eventually displacing the farms that originally governed where the cities formed in the first place. Farmers moved their livestock onto less and less suitable ground. Eventually grazing caused a major erosion problem on the hillsides surrounding cities. Greek scientists were smart enough to see this problem coming, but the society as a whole found no way to prevent the catastrophe it would cause. Eventually, productivity in Greece fell so low that food had to be imported, and over many years Greece's trade deficit bankrupted the society. Greece could no longer afford to sustain it's empire and fell. Some historians place the blame for the fall of Greece largely on the failure to manage land usage and agriculture.

This seems like a fitting analogy to me. The only thing I'd add is that we can't just go off doing silly things that may or may not be effective, yet risk major economic problems. The end goal is to preserve the economy, ie. our supply of food, shelter, clean water, clothing, health care. I'd also feel my quality of life would be greatly diminished if the environment were soundly thrashed by mass extinctions.

One thing that turns me off is seeing things like government subsidisation of products that may very well have no total life-cycle benefit to the environment. That, and green-washing by sales departments.


RE: Way overdue
By gregpet on 5/20/2010 1:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you want snow, maybe you could take some of the 15 inches we got in Dallas, TX last winter! We typically get a couple inches at most...


RE: Way overdue
By Tony Swash on 5/20/2010 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The other advantage would be that the flood of fresh water dropped into the ocean could very well kill of the gulf stream, which feeds warm water to northern Europe, and finally give us back the winters that have been successively taken from us.

Living in northern Sweden I find it ridiculous that I have to keep my fingers crossed to even have a smattering of snow at Christmas.


Where have you been the last two winters?

Generally I think your comment is a perfect example of the anti-modernist green ideology; "terrible things happening would be good because it will convince people that terrible things are going to happen"

I am very much in favour of taking care of the environment but the endless catastrophic scare stories from the greens (of which the global warming scare is just the latest, cleverest and biggest) is tiresome and counter productive. The world is not coming to an end. Relax.

Check out:

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-arctic-is-not-melt...

and

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-polar-ice-caps-are...


RE: Way overdue
By Grabo on 5/20/2010 3:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
No offence here, but it's always the same.

People who severely like Al Gore (I don't get the obsession with the man, but never mind) usually either come up with a self-invented practical answer as to why most climate scientists are dead wrong, or they come up with a funky (singular) reference, not seldom from someone who is clearly just stating a rather unsubstantiated opinion, or someone who (on his own) slanders NASA or the NSIDC or any other serious institution.

Now the Danish Centre of Ocean and Ice (part of the Danish Meteorological Institute) say:

"From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable. "
->http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php

And then an animation of NSIDC data that is meant to show that the Arctic Sea Ice isn't fading? Is he daft?

->http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?config=seaic...

"The linear rate of decline (Sea ice extent) for April over the 1979 to 2010 period is now 2.6% per decade."

As for the ice sheet over Greenland (the land ice) :

"The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007."


RE: Way overdue
By JediJeb on 5/21/2010 5:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a good devils advocate approach to think about. Who knows for certain that the current climate is normal, what if the normal climate taken over say the last million years is much hotter than it is now. If that is true then we are trying to stop the Earth from becoming normal.

There is no way we can take a snapshot of the climate in say 1930 and lock the Earth into that climate for the rest of man's existence on the planet. The climate is dynamic not static and it has and will change far beyond what we think of as normal right now in both the warmer and cooler directions.


Seems to happen every year.
By lightfoot on 5/19/2010 4:00:38 PM , Rating: 5
Crap, the ice melt in Greenland always seems to accelerate this time of year. It must be springtime in the Northern Hemisphere or something...




RE: Seems to happen every year.
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2010 10:48:46 PM , Rating: 1
Nevermind those little things called volcanoes.

Apparently the above sentence is spam by itself....


RE: Seems to happen every year.
By EglsFly on 5/20/2010 12:37:30 AM , Rating: 3
Yea, didn't you hear Bill Clinton's little joke towards Al Gore... Every spring “otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming.”

No, I did not make that up...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/21/clinton-r...


RE: Seems to happen every year.
By gamerk2 on 5/20/2010 8:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
Hence why we look at leves at this time last year, and the year before that, etc. The fact you even had to say that sentence proves you didn't read a single word of that attached study.


bleah shrinking growing
By MadAd on 5/19/2010 8:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
i wish it would just hurry the hell on up and melt, then at least we can move onto the finger pointing and blaming each other rather than this current game

"its not me" "its not me either" "nope nor me" "not our fault"




RE: bleah shrinking growing
By Ammohunt on 5/20/2010 3:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
Even if it did melt stil ldoesn't prove a thing other than the earth has been warming since hte last ice age...which i am happy as hell about.


Anybody want a peanut?
By Morphine06 on 5/19/2010 6:56:24 PM , Rating: 3
Do you want me to send you back to where you're from? Unemployed.... in GREEN-LAND?




The degree...
By Paj on 5/20/2010 8:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
...at which climate change denial occurs on this board is pretty amazing when you consider that its mainly devoted to science.




RE: The degree...
By Earthmonger on 5/20/2010 6:37:53 PM , Rating: 1
Climate change is very real. Many of us just don't run around screaming that the sky is falling. Climate Change Activism is the farce. Speech after prattling speech, we still raise our hands at the end and ask, "So what?" I for one have accepted that the climate WILL change. Why get bent over it? Adapt.
But please, climate change paranoists, quit your damn yammering and finger pointing, what you're saying is irrelevant and retarded. You want to slow down or stop climate change? Why?! It's a natural phenomenon of the planet. Don't fuck with nature.


Bravo!
By gescom on 5/19/2010 3:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well this is great! Let's celebrate!




Not to worry
By corduroygt on 5/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not to worry
By Murloc on 5/19/2010 4:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
no it won't.
it's just a random event anyway so it's not like nature is taking care of itself.


a little late
By TSS on 5/19/2010 9:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thus its critical not to make the wrong move, or a hasty one.


I'm pretty sure we are well past this in the climate debate area.




Should we, could we.....
By rcc on 5/20/2010 3:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the process, we will hopefully gain an understanding of whether man can somehow impact these factors or, alternatively, adjust globally to a shifting climate.


And perhaps we can figure out whether we should do anything. If it turns out not to be a man influenced issue, can we just sit back and let nature do it's thing and adapt? Or will the powers that be insist that we try to change it, and really screw things up?




By Rockinelle on 5/21/2010 9:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
Or it May not be speeding up.

The headline is all I needed to read. Hardly worth discussing such a soft claim.




Cue...
By Smilin on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Cue...
By Smilin on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Cue...
By leuNam on 5/21/2010 1:56:40 PM , Rating: 1
you're warming up


Good...
By iFX on 5/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good...
By Murloc on 5/19/2010 4:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
denmark will, not you :P


RE: Good...
By CurseTheSky on 5/19/2010 5:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
Right, because more landmass for human development and more areas to dig up natural resources is absolute top priority.

I'm not a conservation fanatic, I don't believe (or at least am not terribly concerned with) most of the recent hype about global warming, and I certainly do not buy things just because they're "green." However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that our exploitation does have an effect on the planet as a whole, and simply praising things due to their immediate benefit to us is not necessarily the best course of action in the medium or long term. There's ALWAYS a compromise.


RE: Good...
By corduroygt on 5/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good...
By gralex on 5/20/2010 9:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
Why did this get downrated?

That last sentence more than makes up for a dodgy first one...


RE: Good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2010 7:07:38 PM , Rating: 4
Are cows exploiting the planet because they eat grass and fart methane?? A heard of elephants consume tons and tons of food a day, often stripping a woodland area clean of all grass and small tree buddings. Are they exploiting the planet?

Nope! But human beings? We're supposed to be above survival and using the planet!

quote:
However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that our exploitation does have an effect on the planet as a whole


Yeah maybe because there are about seven BILLION humans living on Earth? How in the hell would seven billion of anything NOT have an effect on the planet?

There is no way to have advanced civilizations and a good standard of living without your so called "exploitation" of the planet. That's a proven fact. So why don't you be the first one of us to strap on a loin cloth and mud hut it up buddy. We're all riiiight behind you!


RE: Good...
By CurseTheSky on 5/19/2010 9:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're twisting that out of the original context.

Note that my reply was in response to another comment about being happy that a large (continent-sized) chunk of the planet could eventually be more suitable for human colonization. You think that something that huge will happen without adverse affects elsewhere on the planet?

Also please notice that I specifically said that I'm not a conservation fanatic. You can keep your loin cloths and mud huts, but I'll keep my opinion that being happy simply because some other part of the planet is now "ready for human use," especially on that grand of a scale, is extremely short-sighted or purposely ignorant.


RE: Good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2010 9:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I'll keep my opinion that being happy simply because some other part of the planet is now "ready for human use," especially on that grand of a scale, is extremely short-sighted or purposely ignorant.


Who cares? It's not like anyone can do anything about it anyway. I'm sure they were just making lighthearted comments anyway.


RE: Good...
By leuNam on 5/20/2010 11:36:03 AM , Rating: 1
yeah who cares, certainly not you. ass


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki