Greenland Ice Cap Melting Faster Than Ever

[NickB79]

Source: Science Daily

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is loosing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science.

This mass loss is equally distributed between increased iceberg production, driven by acceleration of Greenland's fast-flowing outlet glaciers, and increased meltwater production at the ice sheet surface. Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss to 273 Gt per year (1 Gt is the mass of 1 cubic kilometre of water), in the period 2006-2008, which represents 0.75 mm of global sea level rise per year.

Professor Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol and an author on the paper said: "It is clear from these results that mass loss from Greenland has been accelerating since the late 1990s and the underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future. We have produced agreement between two totally independent estimates, giving us a lot of confidence in the numbers and our inferences about the processes".

Read more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112141311.htm

---

But, but Glen Beck told me the ice caps were just fine and global warming stopped in 1998!

[Chef Eric]

1. People's writing skills are disappearing faster than ever, too.

"Loosing" is not a word.

[Enthusiast]

2. We see that one

on the internets every day.

[tclambert]

3. According to my dictionary, it is.

Loose, loosed, loosing. "The dark lord completed his incantation, loosing a legion of demons upon an unsuspecting world." (Referring to Wall Street bankers, no doubt.)

It's just not the right word. Clearly, the writer meant "losing." Mybae ti wsa jsut a tpyo.

[SpiralHawk]

4. Or: "The republicon homelander zealot loosed a crapload of climate disinformation."

Yet another COMMON usage.

[ananda]

5. "Loosing" IS a word.

It means LOOSE-ING, as in cutting loose, setting free.

In this article, however, it is a misspelling of
LOSING.

Yes, literacy and spelling skills are sometimes pretty
pathetic, though.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. As in "cutting loose" mass?

I think it's a misspelling, too, but it's still a correct usage.

[mac56]

7. Really?! That's your response to this info?!

To go all "spelling police" on the OP?!

Words fail me.

[poverlay]

18. I suppose we could all run around screaming, crying, and gnashing our teeth. I did for awhile, but

all it got me was a sore jaw.

I think we're all horrified by this. most especially those of us who have any moderate understanding of the consequences. We must do what we can, when we can. Then we start to check the spelling...

I have to go turn my icemaker up...

[Chef Eric]

20. So I should overlook poor writing when a writer provides some useful info?

That doesn't make any sense. A writer has an obligation to establish a reader's trust, and he can't do that if he doesn't follow the most basic rules.

[mac56]

21. Damn. I can't see the forest because all these trees are in the way.

:eyes:

[Chef Eric]

24. I can see the forest just fine, thank you.

I appreciated the message in the original sciencedaily.com article, which is why I found it annoying that such questionable English was used.

[RebelOne]

25. It is not the mistake of the writer. It is correct in the article.

The original poster made the boo-boo.

[NickB79]

26. I made no such mistake. I copied and pasted the paragraphs directly from the link

Perhaps it was changed later by the editors?

[fascisthunter]

9. admit it... you didn't like the content

[Chef Eric]

22. Admit it, you're a little quick to judge me.

I like the content, which is why I think it deserves to be presented in proper English.

[niceypoo]

33. Spelling police = Drama queens

[XemaSab]

35. Tell that to Yeats

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

[tabasco]

36. Loosing the dogs of war.

It's a word. But not correct in the article.

[Paulie]

8. is there any known multiplier effect between ocean levels and tides?

Is a 1mm rise in ocean levels equate to a 1mm rise in tide peak, or is there any multiplying effect because of increased volume/mass (tis closer to the moon after all)

[populistdriven]

11. the volume of tide is proportional to the surface area of the enclosed bay and height by latitude

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Huh? 'Height by latitude'? What does that mean?

Tidal ranges are affected by the local geography; for instance, narrowing bays/estuaries (such as the Bay of Fundy, or the Severn Estuary, or the English Channel) get large tides. There's certianly nothing 'proportional to latitude'.

[Paulie]

27. I think because of the earths rotation, there is more water around the equator

Which makes sense given the Earth's oblate spheroid shape.

The reason I was asking was to understand who's going to get hit hardest the soonest. Cheers!

[fascisthunter]

10. and I will be blaming the deniers of global warming

people will die more and more, and they will all have that blood on their hands. There is too much evidence and info out there for these assholes to deny, so I blame them as well as the major polluters who are directly responsible for killing us all.

[karynnj]

30. The ones I don't get are ones like Ken Green, from AEI, who

actually has a doctorate in environmental studies from a reputable college, but who spewed lie after lie before the Finance Committee on it. There, it was lucky that Kerry was on the committee. Green richly deserved Kerry taking him apart on several of the lies. Why I don't get it is, why would you study in this area then do things you KNOW are wrong and which can create the amount of damage they will?

This is worse that the Becks and Limbaughs who likely have convinced themselves it is not true.

[WriteDown]

12. An interesting question, if global warming is natural, should we try to stop it?

I do think there are some natural causes in play. Afterall, the time of the dinosaurs was a tropical paradise over most of the world. I always assumed that the Earth will return to that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. If you don't mind getting rid of all human societies, then that might be OK

The thing is, people have homes and agriculture that depend on the climate we've had for the past 10,000 years or so. So if warming were 'natural' (ie nothing to do with humans; though it has clearly been shown that it is), and you didn't mind the end of all current societies, the deaths of a few billion people, and humans having to start building their lifestyles all over again, then fine.

[WriteDown]

16. I for one welcome our new reptilian overlords....

I have friends in that community.

[ensho]

15. faster and faster melting means closer and closer comes the time of

no water to drink for billions of people around the world.


one tick of the clock.

[poverlay]

19. Of course. That's why Bush bought a whole mess of land above one of the largest fresh-water

aquifers in the world.

[Bigmack]

17. Spelling and syntactical wars aside, it's

about, at least in some small part, the fate of the thermohaline current..... Ms Bigmack

[mstinamotorcity]

23. Well any body got

suggestions on small things we can do to help. Most people feel like they have to give up their whole lives to prevent climate change and global warming. That is what r/w have been telling these folks for years that there is no such thing and the earth will be fine for hundreds of years. And why should they give up their life and they won't be around. Me my self I say aren't we smart enough to help solve the problem. I have two suggestions. Walk to get the local paper or corner store instead of driving. And tell Glen Beck to shut the hell up. ahhhhhh i am breathing easier already.:) :) :) :P :P :P

[Uncle Joe]

28. On edit, kicked but too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, Nick.

[Psephos]

29. Meanwhile, total Antarctic ice is growing

The growth is substantial in the East Antarctic ice fields, and more than offsets the calving and decline of the (4x) smaller West Antarctic fields that have gotten more press.

Net Antarctic ice is growing fast enough to offset Greenland losses, at least for the next five to ten years. Apparently it's due to an effect of the Southern Ozone hole.

At some point, this effect will dim and then reverse, due to the abandonment of industrial chlorofluorocarbons. Then it will no longer offset the Western Antarctic and Greenland losses.

Recall that Antarctica contains roughly 90% of all the ice on Earth, and about 80% of all the fresh water on Earth.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988

[NickB79]

32. The problem is that that study measures ice surface area, not ice mass

For example, from 2006: http://www.sciencepoles.org/index.php?/news/antarctic_ice_sheet_losing_mass_unexpectedly/&uid=641&pg=3&type=1

"The study was co-authored by CU-Boulder physics Professor John Wahr of CIRES and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The team used measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, GRACE, to conclude the Antarctic ice sheet is currently losing up to 152 cubic kilometres of ice annually."

A newer study has come out this year that updated the ice loss figures: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019122838.htm

""Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates," said Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator for WAGN. "So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear.""

Not as bad as first thought, but still showing a net loss of ice mass.

The ice shelves may be growing, but the continental glaciers are growing thinner.

[Blue_Tires]

31. ttt

[AlphaCentauri]

34. We are making planet earth a trash dump n/t