Ice Melt in Greenland

Extensive Ice Melt in Greenland: Time to Evacuate the Coasts?

|

Is red really the right color for melting ice?

NASA reported yesterday that satellite measurements have shown an unprecedented extensive surface melting of Greenland's glaciers. From the press release:

For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

So how much might melting glaciers in Greenland contribute to future sea level rise? A modeling study published by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany in the March issue of Nature Climate Change estimated that an increase in average global temperature in the range of 0.8–3.2?°C, with a best estimate of 1.6?°C, could lead to an ice-free Greenland. If all the ice in Greenland were to melt sea level would rise by about 24 feet.

Regarding that study, Live Science further reported:

If humanity managed to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) — a goal embraced by climate negotiators but one that looks increasingly unlikely — the Greenland ice sheet would disappear in 50,000 years, according to the study.

However, the greater the warming, the more rapid the melt; 14.4 degrees F (8 degrees C), which the researchers say equates to a "business-as-usual scenario of greenhouse gas emissions," would result in a complete loss in 2,000 years.

"This is not what one would call a rapid collapse," said lead study researcher Alexander Robinson with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany in a press release issued by the Institute. "However, compared to what has happened in our planet's history, it is fast. And we might already be approaching the critical threshold."

Assuming that somehow global temperatures were to reach and stay at 8 degrees C (14.4 degrees F) warmer than pre-industrial temperatures for two millennia, that would imply an additional 0.14 inches of sea level rise per year (24 feet divided 2,000 years). Adding this to the background rate of 7 inches of sea level rise per century suggests sea level could rise by 21 inches in the next century. That's not nothing, but an immediate evacuation of the coasts would not seem to be called for. And with regard to the hypothesized 8 degree C increase, keep in mind that man-made global warming is thought to have increased global average temperatures by about 0.7 degrees C so far.

Laying aside modeling results for the moment, what is the current rate of melting? A study published in Nature in February looked at data from the GRACE satellites which measure changes in the earth's gravity to uncover trends in the globe's ice mass balances. Using data from 2003 to 2010 that study reports:

…we show that GICs [glaciers and ice caps], excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148?±?30?Gt?yr?1 from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41?±?0.08?mm?yr?1 to sea level rise…

The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4?±?20?Gt?yr?1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55?Gt?yr?1 in previously published estimates. For completeness, we also estimate that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, including their peripheral GICs, contributed 1.06?±?0.19?mm?yr?1 to sea level rise over the same time period. The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48?±?0.26?mm??1, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources.

If the rate of melting in this study were to remain unchanged for the next century, that would imply that all glacial run off would add about 6 inches to global sea level rise contributing to a rise of 13 inches over the next century. Again, no reason to run for the hills immediately.

Advertisement

NEXT: Bill Steigerwald on Whitewashing John Steinbeck

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The water hasn’t covered most of inner city Baltimore yet, so it’s not high enough. We need to fly over there with some big hair dryers and hurry the melt.

  2. If humanity managed to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) ? a goal embraced by climate negotiators but one that looks increasingly unlikely ? the Greenland ice sheet would disappear in 50,000 years, according to the study.

    Climate negotiators? FTW? Who exactly are they negotiating with? God? And what are they negotiating with?

    In 50,000 years we will have transhumanized ourselves to the point that we can fly in interstellar space with no physical consequences, and will have settled a lot of other rocks. That is, if the proglodytes don’t win. In the latter case, we are just fucked as a species any way you slice it.

    1. “climate negotiators” – maybe they need to have a chat with that large, fusing ball of hydrogen ’bout 93 million miles away. Perhaps ftf negotiations?

    2. n 50,000 years we will have transhumanized ourselves to the point that we can fly in interstellar space with no physical consequences,

      I wished that were the case, but having read the OWS post from earlier today, I think it more likely that as machine intelligence reaches a singularity of independence and superiority over human intelligence, we too are racing to a singularity of cognitive dissonance so encompassing that eventually we will all get sucked in to it and die after forgetting how to breath.

      1. Which goes along with the despairing possibility of ‘if the proglodytes win’.

        1. proglodytes

          Win.

    3. In 50,000 years we will have transhumanized ourselves to the point that we can fly in interstellar space

      In 50,000 years I am pretty sure you and me will be dead.

  3. I’m thinking more: Time to buy real estate in Greenland.

    All sorts of reasons … mining rights, oil rights. This is land that has been encased in ice for thousands of years. Who the fuck knows what’s under there.

    Also, build a bunch of hotels and spas. There’s bound to be hot springs, cold springs, whatever. Plus its an exotic locale, and likely attractive to eco-tourists who want to go look at melting glaciers.

    Not to mention – freedom.
    If you really want to establish a libertarian “free state” — do like the Jews and seize a piece of land in Greenland. With the added bonus of there not being a lot of natives around to object.

    Get enough libertarians to move in, claim unoccupied land, stockpile weapons, then declare yourselves a state.

    1. Just have to wait 2,000-50,000 years to exploit it.

    2. This is land that has been encased in ice for thousands of years. Who the fuck knows what’s under there.

      That’s our shared heritage under there. Don’t you dare touch it, you radical extremist! Mother Gaia will smite thee!

    3. “Next year, in Greenland.”

    4. Um Denmark might just have a little something to say about this, with it being their territory and all.

      1. Do you really think that the Danes are going to be able to wage a war to take the territory back from a group of heavily armed libertarians?

        1. I think you are onto something here, Hazel. This could be our opportunity if the ice melts. Someone needs to start working on a flag and a national anthem.

        2. Danes are pussies.

        3. Just wait until you have to pay the Danegeld.

          1. Nothing’s worse than a gelded dane. Pretty voices though.

        4. No. They’ll just bring some really cool furniture, and while we’re busy buying it from them, they’ll take the territory back without a fight.

        5. Wait…

          We want to fight the Danes for Greenland…

          Why don’t we simply fight Danes for Denmark?

      2. Um Denmark might just have a little something to say about this, with it being their territory and all.

        It’s a bunch of Danes. We can buy it for some beads.

    5. Get enough libertarians to move in, claim unoccupied land, stockpile weapons, then declare yourselves a state.

      And then liberty would die again.

      1. With thunderous applause?

      2. Hmm. You have a point. But how are you going to get international recognition without a government to recognize?

    6. Get enough libertarians to move in, claim unoccupied land, stockpile weapons, then declare yourselves a state.

      That last step is kind of problematical. “We’re gonna be free! Now let’s set up our future tyranny!”

      1. Damn you, Epi, and your fast-typing fingers. 😀

        1. PWN’D

          That’s what you get for living in Hawaii. That, and awesome weather, beaches, warm water…what am I doing in Seattle again?

          1. My hot Asian GF walking around nekkid might have also contributed to the slowness of my typing.

            1. what am I doing in Seattle again?

              Waiting for Seattle to get Honolulu’s climate in 2,000 to 50,000 years?

      2. That last step is kind of problematical. “We’re gonna be free! Now let’s set up our future tyranny!”

        Fuck the great-grandkids. I want to do blow off a hooker’s ass that I found in the yellow pages at free-market prices now.

  4. So, in the “nightmare” scenario we’re halfway between the time of Christ and the time of coastal evacuation.

    In the more likely scenario, we’re halfway between the time the Native Americans crossed over from Asia to the time of coastal evacuation.

    1. Or the not-so-native Americans, as the case may be.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..ir=Science

  5. Don’t forget the difference between changes in weather and changes in climate.

    When it’s unusually cold then it’s just the weather. Only deniers equate cold weather to a colder climate. Everyone knows that.

    Now if the temperature is a bit warmer than usual OH MY GOD OUR SINFUL CARBON CONSUMING WAYS ARE COMING BACK TO GET US! THE EARTH IS COMING TO AN END! WHERE ARE YOU AL GORE? SAVE US! SAVE US NOW!

  6. These melts are hardly unprecedented.

    “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.

    H/T Watts up with that

    1. No surprise, the 1880s model SUVs weren’t very fuel efficient.

  7. my buddy’s teaparty folks just returned fm an alaskan cruise.

    they booked a glacier hike.

    after looking at the pics, he axed if it was normal for the glacier to be so small exposing mostly bare rocks.

    he said they got so angry they wouldnt discuss it and changed the subject.

    1. he axed if it was normal

      Ebonics lessons?

      1. after looking at the pics, he axed if it was normal for the glacier to be so small exposing mostly bare rocks.

        Because his “teaparty folks” not doubt had photos of that entire glacier from space to demonstrate how “small” it really was. Given that the average field-of-view of any camera couldn’t possibly capture the entire structure of even the smallest glacier, you’re obviously full of shit. Are you even capable of rationalizing the BS you post before making a fool of yourself. I can’t wait until summer is over and you’re back in school being brainwashed by your 8th grade teacher and no longer posting on here during daylight hours.

        1. gosh that’s too manies big words

          lets play rock, paper, glacier at recess

    2. The bottoms of glaciers generally look like piles of bare rock in the summer.

      1. This. The newscasts with breathlessly narrated video of bits of Antarctic glaciers breaking off into the sea in February as evidence of global warming, always drive me up the wall.

        1. But it’s melting in the middle of winter! /clueless northern hemispherian

    3. after looking at the pics, he axed if it was normal for the glacier to be so small exposing mostly bare rocks.

      I have walked on a glacier before.

      It is still there as big as ever:

      http://goo.gl/maps/4JZ6n

      Why don’t you give us a link to this Alaskan glacier?

  8. Ron , it’s the albedo of the icecap that counts- this is the first time since Eric the Red the Greenland uplands have turned blue with glacial meltwater lakes.

    Peppering the white icecap with lakes is a prime example of climate feedback in the making, because deep water can be dark as asphalt and just as prone to soak up solar heat .

    The overall value of greenland’s albedo has fallen to .75, the lowest number on record.

    1. Eric the Red was alive in 1889?

      You sure about that?

      1. Eric the Red could measure albedo?

        1. Of course. He didn’t have color satellite photo technology, so he couldn’t see the blue, but the grayscale of the black and white satellite photos was good enough to determine albedo.

          1. Don’t be a fool. Odin can measure albedo from Asgard and told the results to Eric via Huginn and Muninn.

            You people with your crazy theories.

      2. Any relation to Rudolph the Red?

    2. RS: Thanks for making this point. I am simply citing the modeling studies and the GRACE data. How much is the albedo change likely to speed up melting?

    3. Except one problem, if the feedback effect was that significant, at least at levels comparable to the current situation then there should have been no way to halt the Greenland Icecaps from melting 500 years ago

      1. Except to observe that contemporary palaeoclimatologists may be correct in discounting or regionally constraining the MWP.

        Proxy data splicing is a very sporty business, but it’s not completely useless. Try to keep an open mind.

        1. Oh I have a very open mind.

          Lets see.

          Global Warming is real

          At least some and probably most of it is the result of mans actions (mostly CO2 but there are probably other causes as well)

          However it is highly unlikely to ever be a serious problem outside of Bangladesh, New Orleans, Amsterdam, and a handful of other low lying areas and even in those areas the process will take so long that people will just slowly move away and abandon them as floods become more common.

          My guess, the number of humans that will be killed as a result of Global Warming in the next 500 years will be less than the number that will die of starvation in the next 100.

          1. Since when does concern for the poor justify actions that infringe on individual property rights?

          2. My guess, the number of humans that will be killed as a result of Global Warming in the next 500 years will be less than the number that will die of starvation in the next 100 three.

        2. Except to observe that contemporary palaeoclimatologists may be correct in discounting or regionally constraining the MWP.

          A valid point several years ago not anymore. The evidence is clear: Europe was warmer during the MWP than now. There’s also more and more evidence that the MWP was global.

    4. this is the first time since Eric the Red the Greenland uplands have turned blue with glacial meltwater lakes.

      Translation: We’re just now recovering from the late medieval little ice age.

    5. Could soot from China decrease the albedo?

  9. I swear, I can’t keep up with this stuff. I know I’ve seen several stories in recent months reporting, “Contrary to predictions, the surface ice in Such-And-Such Frozen Wasteland is actually growing, not melting.”

    1. Depends on which side is spreading the propaganda, the cult of mother Gaia, or evil big oil.

      1. TEAM HOT or TEAM NOT?

    2. TD: You may thinking about this Nature Geoscience study of ice mass trends in the Himalaya and Karakoram mountains.

  10. 7.25.3:07 pm should read ‘Greenland’s ice albedo has fallen to .75, the lowest number on record.’

  11. Greenland’s libido what?

  12. This could be the end of the banana daiquiri as we know it! Also life.

  13. Course a lot of people on here think the science is wrong, but what if it’s wrong in the wrong direction?

    What if that 2000 years is only 200? or 50? What if we cross some unknown tipping point?

    Of course the ocean acidication is probably the more pressing threat anyway.

    1. What if giant sea creatures arise from the deep and drown us all in their urine, which is indistinguishable from fine cognac?

      What IF?!?

      1. I watched Discovery and it said mermaids were real!

        1. Do they all look like Daryl Hannah?

          1. There are some brunettes and redheads, too, for those of us who like variety.

          2. Only her ass when they change in human form. Great variety in facial symmetries and ethnicity amongst them but they all have the same ass.

            1. but they all have the same ass.

              I don’t know…

              It smells fishy to me.

      2. What if we release the Kraken? What then?

    2. No problem. I’ll be just as dead in 200 years as I will be in 2000. Hell, I’ll probably be dead in 50, or wish I was. Fuck if I care.

    3. Libertarians replace the precautionary principle with unbridled, unjustified optimism, except in the case of everything else about society.

      1. Uh, you have the Precautionary Principle backwards.

        1. Not really. The primary positive action being taken is the emission of extra greenhouse gases. That should be the action to which the principle is applied. Yes, it should also be applied to proposals to address the damage, but by far the most radical human action here is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atmosphere by a century of burning fossil fuels–an action for which the precautionary principle has been enthusiastically disregarded the entire time.

          1. Actually, you’re just full of shit.

          2. Shorter: Alteration! Radical! Damage! *waves hands frantically*

          3. The precautionary principle is supposed to apply to changes in action, not “positive action”. If it were the latter it would be impossible to apply, since untangling what’s a positive action and what’s not is often extremely difficult.

            1. Right. The Precautionary Principle according to Tony, is “NEVER DO ANYTHING!” because you can’t prove a negative. Nobody can ever prove that what they do will have no impact on anything, so his “interpretation” translates to “never do anything.”

              That’s why he’s full of shit.

      2. Tony +1

      3. Libertarians replace the precautionary principle with unbridled, unjustified optimism, except in the case of everything else about society.

        You are faced with the same problem only in reverse Tony.

        I don’t agree with you on your premise…but one assumes you agree with your own…and you just self defeated your own argument.

    4. Of course the ocean acidication is probably the more pressing threat anyway.

      No. The ocean has been more acidic than this. There’s really no reason to fear that yet.

      1. As with warming, the concern with acidification is that it may happen more quickly than it has in past eras. Life can adjust to a lot of things, but it takes a long time.

    5. You mean like the predictions that supposedly come from “science” has been shown time and again to be wrong? You know. Like the FACT that the earth hasn’t warmed in a decade? Or the FACT that different cloud patterns have actually shown a slight cooling over the last decade? Or the FACT that not a single one of the horrific things scientists have been predicted based on their (ultra-flawed) models has happened?

      You mean that kind of wrong?

    6. Ok what if it is only 200 years.

      Well 200 years ago was 1812, a time in which we had barely even begun using coal and the industrial revolution was still 40 – 60 years away (depending on which continent you were on).

      200 years from now our technology will have progressed such that probably aren’t burning fossil fuels any longer and we are no longer a single planet species with significant colonies on the Moon and at the L4/L5 points and probably a fledgling colony on Mars and maybe an Asteroid or two.

      There is little to no question that a 24 inch rise in sea level during that time would be just a minor inconvienence at worst (if we even noticed it). Hell I live less than 3 miles from the ocean and a half a mile away from a river which empties into the ocean at that point and even a 4 foot rise in sea level would not put my house in any danger of being flooded, not even if you then combined a high tide with a significant storm surge.

  14. Ron, when the ice is pristine white, it can reflect all but a few tens of watts per square meter of the low-angle Arctic summer sunlight.

    When the albedo falls to .75, as has been reported, the absorbed energy could approach 100 watts/m2, so all things being equal, I’d guess the melt rate could more than double. Best get a reality check from a glaciologist on the spot.

    Speaking of moraines TD seems terminally disinformed- the UN Glaciergate woo-woo from the usual suspects at the Heartland Institute boils down to the deeply shocking discovery that the ice atop K2 and elsewhere in the death zone is too bloody high up to melt .

    1. If the more dire forecasts by the alarmists are true, and big portions of land disappear under water, then I have a question.

      What group of people would be more likely to survive that? Those who think like Libertarians and would choose to adapt, innovate, and survive, or those who think more like progressives, whose solutions would be to whine like helpless infants and scream for more taxes on the evil rich.

      We cannot control the climate with todays technology. It has been extreme in the past, and likely will be in the future. Our only recourse is adapt and innovate, or move.

    2. Dr. Seitz:

      What is the ‘normal’ albedo for Greenland? How far back do the albedo records go? Are we assuming that all of the projected melt is going only to liquid water, and thence to the ocean, or is some of it vaporizing and forming clouds? How is the normal albedo measured? Is it a running average, does it take clouds into account?

      If indeed, this has happened 150 years ago, did sea levels dramatically rise then? I’d think we’d have noticed, if they had.

      Sure is a dramatic looking chart in the OP…

      1. Since Dr Seitz isn’t back yet, I’ll answer part of it — as it’s impossible to calculate from the earth’s surface, there is absolutely no way we have albedo records from before the 1960s. And even that’s dubious, probably more like the 70s.

        Further, I’m fairly skeptical about how deep those lakes in central Greenland can get; it would stand to reason that they’d grow horizontally rather than vertically, since there aren’t any terrain features at the top of the ice cap to constrain their horizontal growth, and the coldest part of a lake on top of an ice cap would be the bottom.

        1. Wrong and wronger-it’s easy to caluclate if you measure the reflectiviry of the surface material , eg. snow. Which is why glaciologists have been lugging radiometers around since Wegener’s day if not before.

          The depths of the deepest Greenland icecap lakes look like blue ink, and descend into cavernous moulins thousands of feet deep

    3. ” the deeply shocking discovery that the ice atop K2 and elsewhere in the death zone is too bloody high up to melt .”

      The talk about ice at the poles melting all the time….and I wouldn’t figure that would even be possible.

      1. K2 is too cold to melt because it’s 5 miles up in the atmosphere. The North pole gets a lot warmer.

    4. the UN Glaciergate woo-woo from the usual suspects at the Heartland Institute boils down to the deeply shocking discovery that the ice atop K2 and elsewhere in the death zone is too bloody high up to melt .

      Okay…still the IPCC’s fuckup. As usual.

    5. the UN Glaciergate woo-woo from the usual suspects at the Heartland Institute boils down to the deeply shocking discovery that the ice atop K2 and elsewhere in the death zone is too bloody high up to melt .

      I thought it boiled down to the fact that no one actually did the study, they just cited some opinions. Kind of like the ice cap down south. Confirmation bias for the win.

  15. My spouse is never happy when my albedo falls.

    1. A mulatto
      An albino
      A mosquito
      My albedo
      Yeah

    2. There must be a joke in this about alfredo, but I don’t know what it is.

      1. If your fettuccine albedo gets below .75, you need to reduce the butter and add more cream.

      2. Listen up Alfredo’s this song is for you!

  16. re 3:27 pm
    Ron :the 2x melt factor of course applies only when the sun is shining- It says nothing about the rate at which fresh snow replaces the lost mass and repairs the albedo.

  17. the Greenland ice sheet would disappear in 50,000 years, according to the study.

    Did they factor in the fact that we are going to have a couple of ice ages between now and then?

    1. Not to mention run out of oil.

      1. It has always seemed funny to me that the same people who think we will run out of oil by 2050 think that we will be burning oil at the same rate as we are today, in the year 25000. Something about that doesn’t quite add up. I’m not sure what it is. Can someone help me here?

        1. Natural gas, coal, wood, and strawmen.

  18. 14.4 degrees F (8 degrees C), which the researchers say equates to a “business-as-usual scenario of greenhouse gas emissions

    Riiiight. The default scenario is that humans will raise the temperature of the entire earth by 14 degrees F? I’m calling bullshit.

  19. Don’t expect to see water skiiers in Greenland’s Summit webcam –

    It stands way above the melt belt at 3,000 meter elevation.

  20. NASA reported yesterday that satellite measurements have shown an unprecedented extensive surface melting of Greenland’s glaciers.

    Unprecedented? Bullshit. It happened in the 1800s.

    1. Well, sort of totally unprecedented. Like, it hasn’t happened in the past few years.

      1. Like, it didn’t happen in the 1800’s either , O Coeus, sockpuppet of the Gods- ‘it’ is an icecap wide melting event , and there is nothing so extensive in a titanic ice core record covering eons,

        1. And you’re certain of that? Maybe got some evidence to back it up? Cause the evidence we have points to a similar event in the 1800s.

          1. I wouldn’t hold Russel to the standard of proving a negative, but I do expect him to read the goddamn press release before spewing his bullshit.

            1. Asking someone for evidence would not be demanding that he PROVE a negative, though. 🙂

        2. It’s right there in the original press release from NASA: “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”

          Why on earth would you believe one part of the press release, but not the other?

    2. And the melting has been seen in ice cores dating back more than a thousand years.

      http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/…..-events-at

      1. Well, okay, it is totally unprecedented this year, anyway. How’s that?

  21. Ice cores are local, and whenever a locality gets to record highs , you get local melting– This is three quarters of a million square kilometers melting all at once

    Geddit ?

    1. And the evidence that this has not happened before would be?

      1. The evidence such as it i ,is simply that the glaciologists who map core correlation- I talked to one earlier this month have not , to the best of my knowledge , seen an icecap wides swathe of missing annual layers correseponding to a meltdown as extensive as this one.

        So why don’t you ask a glaciologist and report back if there is a paper laying out something so conspicuously publishable?

        1. 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.

          “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.”

          Now name your glaciologist who has a different opinion. Cause this one is the only one I’ve been able to find. Unless you don’t know who you were talking to earlier this month (or, more likely, are full of shit).

          1. Notice that the fraud comes back to post the next day and ignores direct challenges.

    2. So essentially we are able to witness a natural event that only happens every 150 years and your response is we are all doomed.

      You remind me of the crazies who when halley’s comet comes around claim that it is a herald of our doom.

      Anyway volcanic dust and black soot have a far higher albedo then liquid water does and the event we just witnessed was Greenland washing it self off….then refreezing to clean and brighter ice.

    3. Lots of local cores = regional perspective

      It’s happened before. Deal with it.

  22. I will just leave this here.

    http://westinstenv.org/wp-cont…..000yrs.jpg

    1. Interesting. So we would expect 1.5 to 2.0 C of warming, just to get back to the 10,000 year mean temperature, and 3 C of warming if we saw a peak like that which happens when the Minoan civilization was cruising the world in its Hummers and Range Rovers.

    2. Oh no you won’t-

      that link is to a thoroughly bogus graph from WISE, a sort of Canadian Climate Depot

      This particular example bears no resemblence to cited author Richard Alley’s data set- here’s the original

      1. I looked at joshua corning’s graph and at your graph, and the temperature graphs look absolutely identical to me.

        How is it bogus?

        1. The bogosity consists in Corning’s green line being a fit to an arbitrary rubber graph paper stretch of one-third of Alley’s data.

          1. Ah, okay. I generally ignore such fits. Nonetheless, some might argue that “not in an ice age” is a difference in kind rather than degree and therefore deserves a different fit. And they’re probably right.

  23. http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

    Here is a live broadcast of greenland’s summit.

    1. Meanwhile back at sea level, the sea ice is shrinking too.

  24. Here’s hard evidence of glacial melt causing sea level to rise… and I quote – “WOW”! http://www.wtop.com//884/29605…..land-VIDEO

    1. Which as noted earlier is two miles above sea level- the whole point of Ron’s post is that Summit is now surrounded by an ocean of slush- picking the highest point in Greenland is the Everest of cherry picking .

      Here, from the NASA Terra platform’s MODIS sensor MOD 10A1 , are the albedo data for the whole country, from sea level to Summit.

  25. If it is only 2000 years, I think, given the speed and efficiency of government, D.C. better start planning the move now.

  26. ok….soI am not current on greenland cultural shit, but,greenland is covered in mostly ice,right??? So if it all melts away, isnt that a BENEFIT to greenlanders?? You know, access to new grazing/agricultural land,mineral exploration/exploitation….and room for population expand out to new areas..positives out number negatives in my view.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.