Nearly 40 years of satellite data from Greenland shows that glaciers on the island have shrunk so much that even if global warming were to stop today, the ice sheet would continue shrinking.
King said that large glaciers across Greenland have retreated about 3 kilometers on average since 1985—"that's a lot of distance," she said. The glaciers have shrunk back enough that many of them are sitting in deeper water, meaning more ice is in contact with water. Warm ocean water melts glacier ice, and also makes it difficult for the glaciers to grow back to their previous positions.
Ahead of schedule but following the path exactly as predicted.
Warming Greenland ice sheet passes point of no return
Very, very, sad.Ahead of schedule but following the path exactly as predicted.
Warming Greenland ice sheet passes point of no return
Ahead of schedule but following the path exactly as predicted.
Warming Greenland ice sheet passes point of no return
The total mass of the Greenland ice sheet is 2,900,000 Gt of ice.Altogether, the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 3,902 ± 342 Gt of ice to the ocean since 1992,
with roughly half of this loss occurring during the 6-yr period between 2006 and 2012.Dec 10, 2019
Note: 1km3 of ice is about 1Gt.The total volume of Greenland’s ice sheet is about 2,900,000 km3 This 10 years of loss is equivalent to 0.05% of that volume.
Cool. It will promote tourism and new construction. Now they just need some good weed shacks and cheap beer and they will become a tourist Mecca.
Complete, innumerate nonsense. 99.5% of the Greenland ice sheet present in 1900 is still there today. At present rate of loss it will take several thousand years just to lose half the ice sheet. This claim is a Jedi mind trick to fool the feeble-minded.
So what is causing this?
(SOURCE)
Any ideas?
Would you care to explain the bolded parts from this?
"The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island's edges." (SOURCE)
You know what is a "feeble minded mind trick"? One in which a person utilizes a very large number and then ignore small variances. I don't know where you get your 99.5% of the Greenland Ice Sheet but it doesn't really matter, does it? Because it is a very, very large ice sheet and the ice loss is currently very clearly visible and accelerating. So, who cares that AGW has only been able to whack out half a percent of 2,900,000 km^3? That's >14,000km^3 of ice loss!
So in your infinite wisdom: why are we seeing accelerating mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet?
The problem is your woefully inappropriately scaled graphic. Here's some perspective.
Alarmists Gone Wild: Greenland losing 400 cubic km ice cubes per year!!!
LIke I said: very large numbers and moderate change can easily be "negated" if one ignores the fact that there is a very real signal being seen. Your "small numbers" feeble mindtrick isn't all that impressive in light of the actual data.
So, again, what is causing the last 50 years or so of ice loss and why is it accelerating?
If you think it is merely noise then support your claim.
Because virtually no real earth, atmospheric, oceanic or glaciology expert seems to think it is noise.
ALSO: beware your possible lack of understanding of what is going on in Greenland. There is additional accumulation in other parts of the ice sheet. It is not as if the entire thing is just statically decreasing (although net it is). This is to be expected. This will moderate some of the overall loss, but loss at the edges (where a glacier is expected to be most likely to lose mass) is very signficant and accelerating.
It grows, it shrinks -- always. Nothing to see here. And the "acceleration" is inconsequential.
The problem is your woefully inappropriately scaled graphic. Here's some perspective.
Alarmists Gone Wild: Greenland losing 400 cubic km ice cubes per year!!!
[FONT="]. . . Using [I]The Economist[/I] ratio of 400 km[FONT=inherit]3[/FONT] to 375 gigatonnes, 2,600,000 km[FONT=inherit]3[/FONT] works out to 2,437,500 gigatonnes. When some actual perspective is applied, it is obvious that “the ice sheet goeth” nowhere:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="] The ice sheet goeth nowhere.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Despite all of the warming since the end of Neoglaciation, the Greenland ice sheet still [URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/30/greenland-retained-99-7-of-its-ice-mass-in-20th-century/"]retains more than 99% of its 1900 AD ice mass[/URL].[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
So you are saying you can't really use any science to support your position, only how pretty pictures appear to you? You see a line and think it is inconsequential but you can't actually tell us how inconsequential it is other than to wave your hand at the pretty picture?
You wave your hand about "it's always changing" but that's precisely where science operates. If there's change then there is likely a reason. If change is happening outside of an expected range then we have a SIGNAL.
This is why the majority of the earth's climate scientists are concerned with Greenland. It is showing a signal. A rather strong signal. Just because you want to integrate it across the entire mass means that you don't really want to deal with the real signal.
If 0.5% of my body started to develop gangrenous rot and drop off, would I simply shrug and say "hey, it's on 0.5% of my body! Besides I'm losing skin cells all the time anyway!"
No. I'd investigate to see if I had leprosy.
Just curious if you know how to use Google Scholar to find actual primary resources in the sciences?
Cool. It will promote tourism and new construction. Now they just need some good weed shacks and cheap beer and they will become a tourist Mecca.
interested in some ocean side property?
Hmmm. That's perhaps the most inapt analogy ever. Regardless, the science supporting my position is simply that miniscule fluctuations in ice mass are not alarming.
Cool. It will promote tourism and new construction. Now they just need some good weed shacks and cheap beer and they will become a tourist Mecca.
Very well might be if the price is right and the polar bears sparse. America is a lost cause anyway.
... low HOA...
Like I said: your primary error is integrating the loss over the entire mass of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
If your finger fell off it would amount to only a small fraction of your total weight. So it's no big deal, is it?
Let's put it differently: let's say for a moment that you were a real scientist and asked to look at the Greenland Ice Sheet for "thermally induced changes". Where, specifically, would you go on the ice sheet?
Let's make it more real: let's say your friends at the ISGS asked you to figure out how the nearly 1 mile ice sheet that once covered Champaign-Urbana disappeared. Do you think it disappeared all across the northern hemisphere uniformly at all latitidues? Or do you think maybe, just maybe, the edges melted back? (I'll give you a hint...you can go to a large number of places in east central Illinois and see the recessional moraines from when the ice sheets RECEDED (meaning the edges melted away).
So OF COURSE the edges of Greenland are going to be the ones showing the LARGEST CHANGE...meanwhile the central parts of the ice sheet may actually show some modest accumulation!
That's how glaciers work.. The "movement" of a glacier is driven by accumulation vs loss.
At the end of the Wisconsinin Glacial Advance which covered 1/3 to 1/2 of Illinois, when the ICE AGE WAS ENDING the edges of the continental glaciers were what was receding. Yes the overall ice sheet decreased but the largest signal was still on the edges. And it would have been miniscule compared to the overall mass of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.
Ahead of schedule but following the path exactly as predicted.
Warming Greenland ice sheet passes point of no return
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?