• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greenland is losing ice faster than expected

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
23,091
Reaction score
17,997
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than in the 1990s and is tracking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's high-end climate warming scenario, which would see 40 million more people exposed to coastal flooding by 2100.

A team of 96 polar scientists from 50 international organisations have produced the most complete picture of Greenland ice loss to date. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) Team combined 26 separate surveys to compute changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet between 1992 and 2018. Altogether, data from 11 different satellite missions were used, including measurements of the ice sheet's changing volume, flow and gravity.

Greenland ice losses rising faster than expected

Direct link to the article:
Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018 | Nature
 
I'm sure the survivors of the Titanic's sinking will be glad to know icebergs in the North Atlantic are melting. May they rest in peace other than that I don't see how it affects my life.
 
I'm sure the survivors of the Titanic's sinking will be glad to know icebergs in the North Atlantic are melting. May they rest in peace other than that I don't see how it affects my life.

Over the years you see many stupid comments on DP... Somehow, it only gets worse tho.
 
Shoulda sold when they had a chance. The price, unlike sea level, is going down.
 
This is impossible.

I was told by a plumber who is good at sums that Greenland isn’t losing ice

I was also told by a guy who reads a lot (of ****ty blogs) that the ice is increasing.

I’ve also been assured by two suppposed engineers that CO2 doesn’t increase earths temperatures that much so any ice loss is just no big deal. I’m pretty sure one thinks it’s melting slightly because the sun was stronger back in the Eisenhower administration, but I suspect he was drinking.

I don’t understand why these scientists don’t know this stuff as well as our resident deniers.
 
[h=2]Tough Times For Climate Alarmists[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on December 9, 2019 by tonyheller[/FONT]
Arctic sea ice growth so far this month has been the fastest on record, and ice extent is nearly “normal.” It is going to be difficult blaming this year’s winter weather on missing Arctic ice.

The center of the Greenland ice sheet is -62 degrees this afternoon.
 
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than in the 1990s and is tracking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's high-end climate warming scenario, which would see 40 million more people exposed to coastal flooding by 2100.

A team of 96 polar scientists from 50 international organisations have produced the most complete picture of Greenland ice loss to date. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) Team combined 26 separate surveys to compute changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet between 1992 and 2018. Altogether, data from 11 different satellite missions were used, including measurements of the ice sheet's changing volume, flow and gravity.

Greenland ice losses rising faster than expected

Direct link to the article:
Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018 | Nature

There is probably more than 10 times the soot in the area than in the 90's as well.
 
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than in the 1990s and is tracking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's high-end climate warming scenario, which would see 40 million more people exposed to coastal flooding by 2100.

A team of 96 polar scientists from 50 international organisations have produced the most complete picture of Greenland ice loss to date. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) Team combined 26 separate surveys to compute changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet between 1992 and 2018. Altogether, data from 11 different satellite missions were used, including measurements of the ice sheet's changing volume, flow and gravity.

Greenland ice losses rising faster than expected

Direct link to the article:
Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018 | Nature

People have been watching this polar ice and these glaciers fluctuating since about the 50s and since about seventies they've been panicking about it.

I wouldn't worry about it
 
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than in the 1990s and is tracking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's high-end climate warming scenario, which would see 40 million more people exposed to coastal flooding by 2100.

A team of 96 polar scientists from 50 international organisations have produced the most complete picture of Greenland ice loss to date. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) Team combined 26 separate surveys to compute changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet between 1992 and 2018. Altogether, data from 11 different satellite missions were used, including measurements of the ice sheet's changing volume, flow and gravity.

Greenland ice losses rising faster than expected


The findings, published today in Nature today, show that Greenland has lost 3.8 trillion tonnes of ice since 1992—enough to push global sea levels up by 10.6 millimetres. The rate of ice loss has risen from 33 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s to 254 billion tonnes per year in the last decade—a seven-fold increase within three decades.

3.8 Trillion tonnes, 3.8 thousand cubic kilometers of ice melted. No sign of the big hole in Greenland's ice though....

254Gt/yr is far less than the usual 400Gt number thrown around so no, this figure is not higher it is lower. But still a lie.

10.6mm in 30 years. OK, I'll not panic if you don't mind.
 
I wouldn't worry about it
You should.

This is not about "fluctuations." It's about significant acceleration in the amount and rate of glacial ice losses. Since Greenland's ice is on land, when it melts it goes into the ocean, which raises sea levels. In fact, it's now happening so fast that it suggests sea level rise will rise at some of the highest rates currently predicted by climate scientists. And yes, that matters.
 
You should.

This is not about "fluctuations." It's about significant acceleration in the amount and rate of glacial ice losses. Since Greenland's ice is on land, when it melts it goes into the ocean, which raises sea levels. In fact, it's now happening so fast that it suggests sea level rise will rise at some of the highest rates currently predicted by climate scientists. And yes, that matters.

Yeah, it has got to the level of 2 inches by 2100. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!
 
You should.
why I can't do a damn thing about it.

That's kind of like worrying about spilled milk.
This is not about "fluctuations." It's about significant acceleration in the amount and rate of glacial ice losses.
that's a fluctuation and I am not worried about that.
Since Greenland's ice is on land, when it melts it goes into the ocean, which raises sea levels. In fact, it's now happening so fast that it suggests sea level rise will rise at some of the highest rates currently predicted by climate scientists. And yes, that matters.
the sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. I'm not worried about that.
 
why I can't do a damn thing about it.

That's kind of like worrying about spilled milk.
that's a fluctuation and I am not worried about that.
the sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. I'm not worried about that.

God to Noah - "How long can you tread water?"...
 
why I can't do a damn thing about it. That's kind of like worrying about spilled milk.
Human beings are causing the warming. You, as a human being, can do something about it. You can conserve energy, generate less trash, advocate for more sustainable energy sources and green policies, and so on.

I.e. This is no different than any other social or political issue. And if you don't care about any such issues, then why are you here?


that's a fluctuation and I am not worried about that. the sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. I'm not worried about that.
:roll:

Again, it's not a "fluctuation," and this is not normal. Sea levels do not magically change independent of the rest of the climate or for no reason at all -- for example, when the climate is warming (due to natural or human causes), the sea level will rise; when it's cooling, it will fall. Sea levels were basically flat before 1900, and are only rising now as a result of humanity's impact on the climate.

Oh, and your mantra of "I'm not worried" does not mean this is not a problem.
 
Human beings are causing the warming. You, as a human being, can do something about it.
no no I can't, and neither can you. I do not possess the ability to control the minds of 7 billion people.
You can conserve energy, generate less trash, advocate for more sustainable energy sources and green policies, and so on.
but I'm not going to do any of those things. Number one I don't think they do any good, number two I don't really want to deal with it. Number three I think "green policies" should not only be discouraged but should be outlawed in some cases.

If you want to do those things I'm not going to stand in your way but I'm not concerned about glaciers melting they've been melting for 20000 years.
I.e. This is no different than any other social or political issue. And if you don't care about any such issues, then why are you here?
who said I didn't care about these issues I care very much about stopping the ignorance in hysteria you are spreading. it surprises me how many people are duped by this socialist nonsense being disguised as caring for the planet. I was able to see through it as a child.


:roll:

Again, it's not a "fluctuation," and this is not normal.
you can think about it anyway you want, but it absolutely is a fluctuation. over history there has been times when there was less ice on the planet than there is now that means it's a fluctuation.

Sea levels do not magically change independent of the rest of the climate or for no reason at all -- for example, when the climate is warming (due to natural or human causes), the sea level will rise; when it's cooling, it will fall.
yeah it's been rising for 20,000 years. Before that it was falling and probably before that it roads and before that it sell these are fluctuations and whether or not you think they're normal they seem to be pretty status quo.

Sea levels were basically flat before 1900, and are only rising now as a result of humanity's impact on the climate.
to believe something that's absurd is this you must reject all of science. The sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years that's before 1900. they've been racing since the planet has been coming out of an ice age.

to think that there is no such thing as an ice age and therefore no such thing as warming up from an ice age is to disregard all of natural Science.

I used to wonder how they can get people to believe something so ridiculous. Now I just pity people who do.
Oh, and your mantra of "I'm not worried" does not mean this is not a problem.
I'm not worried because I don't believe there's a problem.

You and all the other watermelons have done an absolute dismal job of convincing people. And I really think that it has to do with the prophetic religious type predictions you people keep making. The apocalypse has been just five years away for 40 years I was brainwashed with all this crap as a kid back in school remember hearing about how my city would be underwater 10 years ago I don't believe you.
 
no no I can't, and neither can you. I do not possess the ability to control the minds of 7 billion people.
but I'm not going to do any of those things. Number one I don't think they do any good, number two I don't really want to deal with it. Number three I think "green policies" should not only be discouraged but should be outlawed in some cases.

If you want to do those things I'm not going to stand in your way but I'm not concerned about glaciers melting they've been melting for 20000 years.
who said I didn't care about these issues I care very much about stopping the ignorance in hysteria you are spreading. it surprises me how many people are duped by this socialist nonsense being disguised as caring for the planet. I was able to see through it as a child.


you can think about it anyway you want, but it absolutely is a fluctuation. over history there has been times when there was less ice on the planet than there is now that means it's a fluctuation.

yeah it's been rising for 20,000 years. Before that it was falling and probably before that it roads and before that it sell these are fluctuations and whether or not you think they're normal they seem to be pretty status quo.

to believe something that's absurd is this you must reject all of science. The sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years that's before 1900. they've been racing since the planet has been coming out of an ice age.

to think that there is no such thing as an ice age and therefore no such thing as warming up from an ice age is to disregard all of natural Science.

I used to wonder how they can get people to believe something so ridiculous. Now I just pity people who do.
I'm not worried because I don't believe there's a problem.

You and all the other watermelons have done an absolute dismal job of convincing people. And I really think that it has to do with the prophetic religious type predictions you people keep making. The apocalypse has been just five years away for 40 years I was brainwashed with all this crap as a kid back in school remember hearing about how my city would be underwater 10 years ago I don't believe you.

YouTube
 
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than in the 1990s and is tracking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's high-end climate warming scenario, which would see 40 million more people exposed to coastal flooding by 2100.

A team of 96 polar scientists from 50 international organisations have produced the most complete picture of Greenland ice loss to date. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) Team combined 26 separate surveys to compute changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet between 1992 and 2018. Altogether, data from 11 different satellite missions were used, including measurements of the ice sheet's changing volume, flow and gravity.

Greenland ice losses rising faster than expected

Direct link to the article:
Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018 | Nature

Greenland ice cores are doing just fine

For Most Of The Last 10,000 Years, Greenland Ice Sheet and Glacier Volume Was Smaller Than Today
 
Human beings are causing the warming. You, as a human being, can do something about it. You can conserve energy, generate less trash, advocate for more sustainable energy sources and green policies, and so on.

I.e. This is no different than any other social or political issue. And if you don't care about any such issues, then why are you here?



:roll:

Again, it's not a "fluctuation," and this is not normal. Sea levels do not magically change independent of the rest of the climate or for no reason at all -- for example, when the climate is warming (due to natural or human causes), the sea level will rise; when it's cooling, it will fall. Sea levels were basically flat before 1900, and are only rising now as a result of humanity's impact on the climate.

Oh, and your mantra of "I'm not worried" does not mean this is not a problem.
I think the best someone can say about the available data is that Human activity "May" be responsible
for some of the observed warming over the last century!
Depending on the level of CO2 sensitivity, which itself is highly uncertain,
the Human contribution could be the majority.
Herein lies the problem, to get back to the climate of say 1960, if the theory and sensitivity are correct,
we would not simply need to reduce emissions, but actually get CO2 levels back to ~320 ppm.
The risks involved in doing that, could be far greater than the risks of adapting to whatever warming may occur.
For CO2 raising, each unit is less sensitive, but as CO2 decreases each unit is more sensitive.
 
I think the best someone can say about the available data is that Human activity "May" be responsible
for some of the observed warming over the last century!
Depending on the level of CO2 sensitivity, which itself is highly uncertain,
the Human contribution could be the majority.
Herein lies the problem, to get back to the climate of say 1960, if the theory and sensitivity are correct,
we would not simply need to reduce emissions, but actually get CO2 levels back to ~320 ppm.
The risks involved in doing that, could be far greater than the risks of adapting to whatever warming may occur.
For CO2 raising, each unit is less sensitive, but as CO2 decreases each unit is more sensitive.

And that's assuming that CO2 is the cause. We could reduce it back to 320 ppm, and not see any significant change.
 
And that's assuming that CO2 is the cause. We could reduce it back to 320 ppm, and not see any significant change.
That is correct, the DOD studies in 1960, showed CO2 at 315 ppm was already saturated, with ZERO
wavelengths between 13.5 um and 16 um, transmitting beyond 10 miles.(16.1 km)
I suspect whatever warming that is still occurring from added CO2, is no longer on that nice log curve,
but far lower.
 
That is correct, the DOD studies in 1960, showed CO2 at 315 ppm was already saturated, with ZERO
wavelengths between 13.5 um and 16 um, transmitting beyond 10 miles.(16.1 km)
I suspect whatever warming that is still occurring from added CO2, is no longer on that nice log curve,
but far lower.

Oh, for heaven's sake, this whole CO2 absorption saturation issue was put to bed long ago by Gilbert Plass, back in the 1950s. Here's his original paper:

The influence of the 15um carbon-dioxide band on the atmospheric infra-red cooling rate
 
That is correct, the DOD studies in 1960, showed CO2 at 315 ppm was already saturated, with ZERO
wavelengths between 13.5 um and 16 um, transmitting beyond 10 miles.(16.1 km)
I suspect whatever warming that is still occurring from added CO2, is no longer on that nice log curve,
but far lower.

I was trying to do some abstract math with the basics of the graph in the other thread. It's too complex for that simple approach though, and my 40 dB figure is probably high. It's probably between 20 dB to 30 dB, the more I look at the graph. I would have to get the line by line data and put it in a spreadsheet, to have any reasonable claim.
 
Oh, for heaven's sake, this whole CO2 absorption saturation issue was put to bed long ago by Gilbert Plass, back in the 1950s. Here's his original paper:

The influence of the 15um carbon-dioxide band on the atmospheric infra-red cooling rate
Do you understand that the 14 to 16 um lines in your cited paper flatten out (read saturation).
CO2 Cloud 1951.jpg
A flat spot means that further increases in CO2 do not change the absorption, since all the energy is already absorbed.
This is the same thing the more recent DOD study found, nearly complete saturation at 10 miles between 13.5 and 16 um.
 
Back
Top Bottom