Print 67 comment(s) - last by Andy35W.. on Dec 17 at 2:24 PM

A picture from satellite data highlights the increase in summer melts in Greenland's ice sheet over the decade between 1992 and 2002  (Source: CIRES and CU Boulder)
Greenland's melt is increasing and continues a series of record setting years

Yesterday, DailyTech covered shocking allegations by an esteemed sea-level expert that the IPCC modified climate data and committed other violations in an attempt to falsely portray accelerating sea level rising.  If true, perhaps the IPCC should have learned to be more patient.

Greenland's melt is accelerating, according to a new study published as part of long-ongoing research at the Colorado University at Boulder on climate change.  In 2007, the summer melt record was surpassed by 10%.  CU Boulder notes that record breaking melts are nothing new to Greenland; the last 20 years have brought 6 record melts, with record melts in 1987, 1991, 1998, 2002, 2005 and 2007.

The base cause is clearly a surface air temperature rise.  Since 1991, extensive data shows that temperatures over Greenland's ice sheet increased approximately 7 degrees Fahrenheit on average.

The report by CU Boulder seemed objective and balanced in its observations.  It helpfully noted that the ice level actually had increased slightly at higher elevations due to increased snowfall over the past decade, however, it noted that this increase was not enough to offset the sharply escalating melting.

Professor Konrad Steffen, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences which headed the study, gave a presentation on his team's research to the American Geophysical Union held in San Francisco from Dec. 10 to Dec. 14.  The paper that the presentation is based on, titled "Melt season duration and ice layer formation on the Greenland ice sheet," was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysics Research and is available here (PDF).

At the presentation, Professor Steffen put the melt in context saying, "The amount of ice lost by Greenland over the last year is the equivalent of two times all the ice in the Alps, or a layer of water more than one-half mile deep covering Washington, D.C."

Professor Steffen explained how his team used Defense Meteorology Satellite Program's Special Sensor Microwave Imager aboard several military and weather satellites to map the melt.  Professor Steffen supplemented this data with polled data transmitted via satellite from 22 stations on the Greenland ice sheet known as the Greenland Climate Network, which he and the University personally maintain.

Lubrication from the melting is one important factor that is speeding up the melt, as explained in Professor Steffen's research.  He stated, "The more lubrication there is under the ice, the faster that ice moves to the coast.  Those glaciers with floating ice 'tongues' also will increase in iceberg production."

If global warming critics or believers hope to use the melt as a quick smoking gun to prove sea level change, they shouldn't hold their breath.  Greenland is slowly and steadily contributing 0.5 mm of world sea level in melt water a year.  If all of Greenland's ice sheet melted, it is estimated that it would raise the global sea levels 21 feet, but for now it is just gradually raising them with time. 

However, deep tunnels in the ice known as moulins are speeding the rate at which water is evacuated into the sea.  With record melts, glacier lubrication, and these tunneling phenomena Professor Stephen expects the current yearly sea level contribution of 0.5 mm/yr to quickly rise.

He thinks that IPCC may have missed the boat on both ends -- overestimating sea level rise now, and underestimating future sea rise for the remainder of the century.  Professor Steffens has publicly stated that based on his understanding of Greenland's current melting process that sea level rise will significantly beat the estimates for 21st century sea level rise made by the IPCC Panel held in 2007.

Professor Steffens works for CIRES, which is a joint venture of CU Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  He and his team will continue to provide a voice of scientific reason in the global debate over whether melting is increasing or decreasing, with his team's diligent analysis of melting in Greenland.

Comments     Threshold

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

I wonder
By AlabamaMan on 12/12/2007 2:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
With increase in both the length of the growing season and accessible arable land, how much do people in Greenland want the rest of the world to "fix" their "problem" with accelerating ice melts?

Has it actually be shown that climate change, human-caused, natural or both, is a BAD thing? Could someone link me to cost-benefit analysis which indicates it's a "problem"?

RE: I wonder
By masher2 on 12/12/2007 2:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
The cost-benefit analysis shown here:

indicated that global warming will be a net benefit.

RE: I wonder
By Andy35W on 12/12/2007 3:18:03 PM , Rating: 1
That's a very species-centric arguement.

"The Southeastern U.S. is expected to see a little less rain, but for tourism-heavy Florida (which bills itself as the "Sunshine State" despite abnormally high rainfall) this may be a net positive as well."

How many animals on the planet? Glad tourists in Florida are ok though. Maybe just build more cruise liners though just in case?

RE: I wonder
By masher2 on 12/12/2007 4:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "That's a very species-centric arguement"

Absolutely! And for those of us who still consider mankind a more important species than the long-tailed rat, the argument is compelling.

However, the net benefit for the entire animal kingdom is likely to be positive as well. Increased CO2 means higher plant growth and, since plants are ultimately the food source for all life on the planet, more animals as well. Some overly-specialized species may go extinct, but the overall effect is likely an increase in total biomass.

RE: I wonder
By Rovemelt on 12/14/2007 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well, with lower Florida under water, tourists can admire the ruins from glass-bottom boats and pass little jokes about a time when people ignored the advice of thousands of scientific experts built on decades of research. Disney will have to change their firework display and modify the "it's a small world" ride to accommodate submarines, but it's all good according to Michael Asher. But some insane top economists predict a US$74 trillion cost to inaction.

They forgot to include all that money to be made from disaster tourism--which comes to (punch some numbers here) $75 trillion! Bingo! Net 1 trillion! Woot!

RE: I wonder
By AlabamaMan on 12/12/2007 3:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that the argument as to why we climate change is such a big issue comes down to "well, it's different and not natural". Not having intestinal parasites is not "natural" either but I don't see "stop the warming" crowd setting personal examples on dealing with that "issue".

RE: I wonder
By Rovemelt on 12/14/2007 12:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Here is an analysis from Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank:

Hmmm...inaction looks kinda expensive.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki