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

Intellectual Neros
By SleepNoMore on 12/13/2007 3:08:15 AM , Rating: 1
I rarely post here. I will most definitely not be liked for what follows. I have nowhere near the education or intellectual pedigree of some on here. I cant help but think that the "scientific" positions that are taken by some here are a form of denial and insanity. They are not in the spirit of Galileo. They are more likely in in the spirit of dishonest Neros.

20 - 30 years from now when we're left with tiny morbid patches of remaining greenery that pass for forests and the Earth resembles an industrial toilet...

Remember these apologists for doing nothing.

Remember these stupid arguments cloaked in a bizarre, hell-bent denial of reality -- coating your brain with equivocations, parsing and rationalizations.

The only difference will be (20 - 30 years down the road): instead of saying "My scientists have data that show things ** really aren't that bad **...." or "This is just a cycle and is minimal when viewed in the context of a few generations".

their tune will be:

"Our models actually predicted this! (after the fact) was gonna happen anyway so what are you whining about?"

You want to be hornswaggled and baffled by denialist BS fine?

The earth is in trouble. Point blank. I believe my own freaking eyes and senses. I don't need another study or more data to tell me that. I don't equivocate or lie to myself about this. I instinctively understand it.

So please..go on..form (or find) a few hundred more studies which split hairs ("it's not new it's old", "it's not global warming, it's greenhouse", "the ice cap is actually thicker in some places..") Whatever.

RE: Intellectual Neros
By masher2 on 12/13/2007 10:23:10 AM , Rating: 4
> "20 - 30 years from now when we're left with tiny morbid patches of remaining greenery that pass for forests and the Earth resembles an industrial toilet..."

Interestingly enough, environmentalists were predicting the exact same thing in the 1960s. It never came to pass. They predicted the same in the 1980s...and it never came to pass either.

In fact, one can find the same "sky is falling" mentality all the way back to the 1800s and earlier. For some reason, many people find the belief that some impending apocalyptic calamity somehow comforting.

Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction.

RE: Intellectual Neros
By Rovemelt on 12/14/2007 12:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Masher types were in full-denial mode right until the very end on Easter Island. But it can't happen here, right?

RE: Intellectual Neros
By TomZ on 12/14/2007 5:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any relationship between the destruction of the ecosystem on Easter Island and global warming. Was that something that was predicted by scientists, but then ignored by people? No.

RE: Intellectual Neros
By TomZ on 12/13/2007 1:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
The only difference will be (20 - 30 years down the road): instead of saying "My scientists have data that show things ** really aren't that bad **...." or "This is just a cycle and is minimal when viewed in the context of a few generations".

30-35 years ago, early 1970's specifically, the same kinds of scientists were predicting a coming ice age and telling us to brace ourselves for that. Now all these years later, that is but a distant memory, and the right thing to do was to see how it played out before getting into a panic.

As Michael said above, there is a strong precedent for alarmism based on the current state of the art which is very poor ability to predict future weather and climate trends. Both in terms of pollution and global warming, which are really two separate things.

The right thing to do last time was to ignore it, and I don't see any real evidence this time to indicate that anything is really different. The evidence that global warming is happening quickly is weak, the evidence that it is largely human-induced is weaker, and the evidence that it will cause us large-scale problems is weakest of all.

Also remember, nobody I know of is here or elsewhere advocating a laissez-faire attitude towards pollution. Just CO2/AGW. Again, two different things.

RE: Intellectual Neros
By Rovemelt on 12/14/2007 1:34:39 PM , Rating: 2

There is no denying that there were some predictions of a coming ice age in the 1970's. The general concept of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions was understood, however cooling from aerosols was also cooling the planet at the same time and it was believed that the forcings from aerosols would be greater than that from greenhouse gases. Forcings from aerosols turned out to be short lived. The popular press (Newsweek, Time) jumped on the coming ice age idea. The scientific community understood that climate science was in it's infancy and expressed that in the publications.

In a nutshell, what was said in the 70's regarding climate change and what's being published today are on two completely different scientific foundations. The sheer volume of climate data collected since the 70's alone should convince anyone of that.


Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.


RE: Intellectual Neros
By TomZ on 12/14/2007 5:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, however, there is a long history of poor correlation between climate model studies and actual reality. In the past, and continuing into the present, they have been very poor predictors of climate change, from what I understand. Models seem to be more detailed now, but I don't see how they are any more accurate.

For example, how many of these models correctly predicted the current leveling off of the previous rise in global temperatures?

RE: Intellectual Neros
By Rovemelt on 12/14/2007 1:10:38 PM , Rating: 1
These climate deniers will be hard to find in twenty years when climate change can't be spun away with simplistic catch phrases anymore. There is essentially no risk (well, except Michael Asher's non-existent professional scientific career blasted further into oblivion, if that's possible) to making completely bogus scientific statements on these blogs. There's a convenient mixture of short-term profits and emotional satisfaction to climate change denial, so they're going to continue with their 'happy-clappy magic ponies running through fields of candy' predictions until the bitter end. Then they'll conjure up some way to blame it on filthy hippies.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home
Related Articles

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