It is melting in a very short time. Ten years. A portent of the future with sea level rise.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/12/greenland-glacier-melting-global-warming-climate-change/75661092/


Quote:

A massive glacier in northeast Greenland has dramatically melted in the past decade and would raise global sea levels by a foot and a half if it thawed completely, according to a study published Thursday. It was a "surprise" to learn how fast the large chunk of ice was shrinking, Jeremie Mouginot, lead scientist of the report, told USA TODAY in an email. The glacier holds enough water to raise global sea levels by more than 18 inches if it were to melt away to nothing, but no timetable exists for how long that process could take, according to the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science. "The glacier has profoundly transformed in only 10 years," Mouginot, of the University of California, Irvine, said. "The glacier is now breaking up and calving high volumes of icebergs into the ocean, which will result in rising sea levels for decades to come.

Humans are flirting with human caused runaway global warming. Lets hope we haven't crossed the end game scenario yet and still have time to keep warming within the 1.5 degrees of heating.

____ wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:00pm:

Humans are flirting with human caused runaway global warming. Lets hope we haven't crossed the end game scenario yet and still have time to keep warming within the 1.5 degrees of heating.

My belief is that it is already too late. Massive systems like the earths ecology have a momentum which portends that change will not immediately stop when measures are taken to eliminate the causes of change.

The big key is whether there is positive feedback such as warming causing huge releases of methane which then accelerate warming further.

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

____ wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 12:00pm: Humans are flirting with human caused runaway global warming. Lets hope we haven't crossed the end game scenario yet and still have time to keep warming within the 1.5 degrees of heating. My belief is that it is already too late. Massive systems like the earths ecology have a momentum which portends that change will not immediately stop when measures are taken to eliminate the causes of change. The big key is whether there is positive feedback such as warming causing huge releases of methane which then accelerate warming further.

If you Asians would stop breeding like rabbits the earth would be in a better state.

'Greenland's ice sheet appears to be growing faster this winter than in recent years, according to new data from the Danish Meteorological Institute.

This increased rate of ice accumulation follows a virtual standstill in the loss of mass from the huge ice sheet last year that was reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US.'

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/greenlands-ice-sheet-winter-growth-above-average.html

So if Greenland ice mass is increasing and one glacier is decreasing; what is the net effect? There is too little information available to determine.

I'm not quite sure that article matches your first post, or that you misunderstood what the article is saying here.


Quote:

The glacier holds enough water to raise global sea levels by more than 18 inches if it were to melt away to nothing, but no timetable exists for how long that process could take

Quote:

The glacier is near a large one also melting rapidly but at a slower rate. The two chunks of ice make up 12% of the Greenland ice sheet and would boost global sea levels by more than 39 inches if they both totally collapsed, a process that would likely take centuries.

The ten years in the article refers to melting in the past ten years, not the next ten years.

I wonder what the Greenland ice mass was, when inhabited and farmed by the Vikings.

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

'Greenland's ice sheet appears to be growing faster this winter than in recent years, according to new data from the Danish Meteorological Institute. This increased rate of ice accumulation follows a virtual standstill in the loss of mass from the huge ice sheet last year that was reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US.' http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/greenlands-ice-sheet-winter-growth-above-average.html So if Greenland ice mass is increasing and one glacier is decreasing; what is the net effect? There is too little information available to determine.

If the glacier has shrunk of course the growth will be above average if measured in percent mass or volume because the denominator is smaller in the equation as the glacier shrinks.

If a glacier shrinks by 10% and then grows by 10% it will have lost 1% [0.99 = 10 x 0.9 x 1.1]. The effect is cumulative with time.

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:

If the glacier has shrunk of course the growth will be above average if measured in percent mass or volume because the denominator is smaller in the equation as the glacier shrinks. If a glacier shrinks by 10% and then grows by 10% it will have lost 1% [0.99 = 10 x 0.9 x 1.1]. The effect is cumulative with time.

Quite correct. But the increasing ice mass is for all of Greenland, not just the glacier.

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 12:28pm: If the glacier has shrunk of course the growth will be above average if measured in percent mass or volume because the denominator is smaller in the equation as the glacier shrinks. If a glacier shrinks by 10% and then grows by 10% it will have lost 1% [0.99 = 10 x 0.9 x 1.1]. The effect is cumulative with time. Quite correct. But the increasing ice mass is for all of Greenland, not just the glacier.

In Eskimo's freezers?

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 12:28pm: If the glacier has shrunk of course the growth will be above average if measured in percent mass or volume because the denominator is smaller in the equation as the glacier shrinks. If a glacier shrinks by 10% and then grows by 10% it will have lost 1% [0.99 = 10 x 0.9 x 1.1]. The effect is cumulative with time. Quite correct. But the increasing ice mass is for all of Greenland, not just the glacier.

Any increases are small fluctuation where as the glacier melt is due to a hotter ocean and air temps and is longer term.

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:38pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 12:28pm: If the glacier has shrunk of course the growth will be above average if measured in percent mass or volume because the denominator is smaller in the equation as the glacier shrinks. If a glacier shrinks by 10% and then grows by 10% it will have lost 1% [0.99 = 10 x 0.9 x 1.1]. The effect is cumulative with time. Quite correct. But the increasing ice mass is for all of Greenland, not just the glacier.

Actually, an error in my calculation. It should have been:

[0.99 = 1 x 0.9 x 1.1]

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

Actually, an error in my calculation. It should have been: [0.99 = 1 x 0.9 x 1.1]

I hadn't checked your figures, I was talking of the theory.


Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

n Eskimo's freezers?

So you disagree with the science?

____ wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

Any increases are small fluctuation where as the glacier melt is due to a hotter ocean and air temps and is longer term.

Can you provide a link to that?

I wrote-

'
lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

So if Greenland ice mass is increasing and one glacier is decreasing; what is the net effect? There is too little information available to determine.

But since you can determine that, you must have a link.

Snow packs decreasing. This is already evident in USA.

Water shortages portended. Water shortage already happening in California USA.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/11/12/us-usa-climate-water-idINKCN0T10OO20151112


Quote:

Large swathes of the northern hemisphere, home to some 2 billion people, could suffer increasing water shortages due to shrinking snowpacks, researchers said on Thursday. Data shows reduced snowpacks - the seasonal accumulation of snow - will likely imperil water supplies by 2060 in regions from California's farmlands to war-torn areas of the Middle East, according to a team of scientists in the United States and Europe. In total, nearly a hundred water basins dependent on snow across the northern hemisphere run the chance of decline. "Water managers in a lot of places may need to prepare for a world where the snow reservoir no longer exists," said Justin Mankin, the study's lead author and a researcher at Columbia University's Earth Institute in New York, in a statement. Basins in northern and central California, the Ebro-Duero basin in Portugal, Spain and southern France and the Shatt al-Arab basin affecting much of the Middle East including Iraq and Syria count among those most sensitive to changes, the study shows. ADVERTISING In these areas, global warming is disrupting snow accumulation, which acts as a seasonal source of water when it melts, the researchers said. Still, across most of North America, northern Europe, Russia, China and southeast Asia, rainfall is projected to continue meeting demand, according to the study published in the online journal Environmental Research Letters. Earlier this year, amid a devastating drought in California, U.S. authorities reported that a dry, mild winter had left the country's Western mountain snowpack at record low levels. World leaders will meet in Paris starting this month in a bid to agree on ways to reduce the effects of climate change. (Reporting by Sebastien Malo, Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, corruption and climate change. Visit www.trust.org)

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Snow packs decreasing. This is already evident in USA.

But we are talking about Greenland.
Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

Water shortage already happening in California USA.

Of course. They live in a dry climate that has experienced droughts before.

'California's current drought is being billed as the driest period in the state's recorded rainfall history. But scientists who study the West's long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began.

And they worry that the "megadroughts" typical of California's earlier history could come again.

Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years. '

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

This is exacerbated by horticulture using irrigation in desert areas, refusing to release water to protect fish (delta smelt), that have survived these previous droughts.

The glacier is near a large one also melting rapidly but at a slower rate. The two chunks of ice make up 12% of the Greenland ice sheet and would boost global sea levels by more than 39 inches if they both totally collapsed, a process that would likely take centuries.
<<

It didn't name the glaciers, ... or maybe i didn't read the article closeley enough ::)

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:19pm:

____ wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 12:00pm: Humans are flirting with human caused runaway global warming. Lets hope we haven't crossed the end game scenario yet and still have time to keep warming within the 1.5 degrees of heating. My belief is that it is already too late. Massive systems like the earths ecology have a momentum which portends that change will not immediately stop when measures are taken to eliminate the causes of change. The big key is whether there is positive feedback such as warming causing huge releases of methane which then accelerate warming further.

Ever heard of negative feed-back mechanisms?

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

'Greenland's ice sheet appears to be growing faster this winter than in recent years, according to new data from the Danish Meteorological Institute. This increased rate of ice accumulation follows a virtual standstill in the loss of mass from the huge ice sheet last year that was reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US.' http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/greenlands-ice-sheet-winter-growth-above-average.html So if Greenland ice mass is increasing and one glacier is decreasing; what is the net effect? There is too little information available to determine.

lol, so because we can't measure the earth we shouldn't bother gettign out of bed  :o :o :o :o

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:27pm:

I wonder what the Greenland ice mass was, when inhabited and farmed by the Vikings.

lol, what was the population of these vikings on greenland?

____ wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

lee wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 12:38pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 12:28pm: If the glacier has shrunk of course the growth will be above average if measured in percent mass or volume because the denominator is smaller in the equation as the glacier shrinks. If a glacier shrinks by 10% and then grows by 10% it will have lost 1% [0.99 = 10 x 0.9 x 1.1]. The effect is cumulative with time. Quite correct. But the increasing ice mass is for all of Greenland, not just the glacier. Any increases are small fluctuation where as the glacier melt is due to a hotter ocean and air temps and is longer term.

Possibly, but the existence of negative feecback mechanisms is actually real physics  :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 2:13pm:

lol, so because we can't measure the earth we shouldn't bother gettign out of bed

Really?

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 1:14pm: Actually, an error in my calculation. It should have been: [0.99 = 1 x 0.9 x 1.1] I hadn't checked your figures, I was talking of the theory. Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 1:11pm: n Eskimo's freezers? So you disagree with the science?

--> where is the science without your logical method?

(clue- go ask daddy for another hit on the sooooooooooooooooooooooooo long thing  :D :D )

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

lol, what was the population of these vikings on greenland?

You tell me. Weren't you were there for the census?

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 2:13pm: lol, so because we can't measure the earth we shouldn't bother gettign out of bed Really?

It's called the uncertainty principle: you can't put measuring devices everywhere... it's also known as limits and is the basis of all design technology  :D :D :D :D :D

Engineering is an applied science: that means someone had to think of the pure science before tryhard uppler-middle class liberal voters could pretend they knew how everything worked via google and more fake friends  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 2:18pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 2:14pm: lol, what was the population of these vikings on greenland? You tell me. Weren't you were there for the census?

you have been owned by me so many times and we all love it long time  ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 2:23pm:

you have been owned by me so many times and we all love it long time

Obviously you have a different definition of "owned".

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

Engineering is an applied science: that means someone had to think of the pure science before tryhard uppler-middle class liberal voters could pretend they knew how everything worked via google and more fake friends

yep, it is also falsifiable Engineering models that don't work end up in the metaphorical "file 13".

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

It is melting in a very short time. Ten years. A portent of the future with sea level rise. http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/12/greenland-glacier-melting-global-warming-climate-change/75661092/ Quote: A massive glacier in northeast Greenland has dramatically melted in the past decade and would raise global sea levels by a foot and a half if it thawed completely, according to a study published Thursday. It was a "surprise" to learn how fast the large chunk of ice was shrinking, Jeremie Mouginot, lead scientist of the report, told USA TODAY in an email. The glacier holds enough water to raise global sea levels by more than 18 inches if it were to melt away to nothing, but no timetable exists for how long that process could take, according to the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Science. "The glacier has profoundly transformed in only 10 years," Mouginot, of the University of California, Irvine, said. "The glacier is now breaking up and calving high volumes of icebergs into the ocean, which will result in rising sea levels for decades to come.

Another article designed to scare the general public.

Its melting that fast, well last time I looked sea levels weren't one and a half feet higher than the previous day.

So when do sea levels go up 1-1/2 feet..??? i'll go down to the waterfront to measure it.

And who says this current warming is due to mans minuscule amount of CO2 emissions..??

One massive solar blast could double the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere,. eclipsing anything man has sent up.

Should we somehow try and blow the sun up then...??

I take it the sun doesn't evaporate water from the sea anymore and rain it back down. It just raises the sea level annihilating small villages on low lying islands in its wake.

What bullshit, these people are reality denialists, otherwise known as FrackingMorons.

I have visited glaciers where signs exhibit photos of the position of the face twenty years ago. Its a good days hike to what's left. The recent loss of ice is induced by the activities of man. I do not believe that is going to change. People are more interested in religion and consumerism.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

I have visited glaciers where signs exhibit photos of the position of the face twenty years ago. Its a good days hike to what's left. The recent loss of ice is induced by the activities of man. I do not believe that is going to change. People are more interested in religion and consumerism.

The issue was already over when the IPCC's global models were proven wrong by observation that is the last  25 years.

They over predicted warming by a factor of about 4.

And all their warming is attributed to mans emissions of CO2.

Therefore how can you still believe in this rubbish.

Any other science would have thrown the baby out with the water since their theory and calculations didn't match reality.

Any other science would have gone back to the drawing board.

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 12:23pm:

I'm not quite sure that article matches your first post, or that you misunderstood what the article is saying here. Quote: The glacier holds enough water to raise global sea levels by more than 18 inches if it were to melt away to nothing, but no timetable exists for how long that process could take [quote]The glacier is near a large one also melting rapidly but at a slower rate. The two chunks of ice make up 12% of the Greenland ice sheet and would boost global sea levels by more than 39 inches if they both totally collapsed, a process that would likely take centuries.

The ten years in the article refers to melting in the past ten years, not the next ten years.[/quote]


but the sky is falling!

Ajax wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 5:40pm:

issuevoter wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 4:31pm: I have visited glaciers where signs exhibit photos of the position of the face twenty years ago. Its a good days hike to what's left. The recent loss of ice is induced by the activities of man. I do not believe that is going to change. People are more interested in religion and consumerism. The issue was already over when the IPCC's global models were proven wrong by observation that is the last  25 years. They over predicted warming by a factor of about 4. And all their warming is attributed to mans emissions of CO2. Therefore how can you still believe in this rubbish. Any other science would have thrown the baby out with the water since their theory and calculations didn't match reality. Any other science would have gone back to the drawing board.

But not the "science" that keeps delivering more and more grants.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

I have visited glaciers where signs exhibit photos of the position of the face twenty years ago. Its a good days hike to what's left. The recent loss of ice is induced by the activities of man. I do not believe that is going to change. People are more interested in religion and consumerism.

Those same signs also point to previous signs of civilisation which were covered up be an expanding glacier. In one case, a missing WW2 bomber was discovered after a glacier retreated.

There is a clue there.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 5:56pm:

issuevoter wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 4:31pm: I have visited glaciers where signs exhibit photos of the position of the face twenty years ago. Its a good days hike to what's left. The recent loss of ice is induced by the activities of man. I do not believe that is going to change. People are more interested in religion and consumerism. Those same signs also point to previous signs of civilisation which were covered up be an expanding glacier. In one case, a missing WW2 bomber was discovered after a glacier retreated. There is a clue there.

But it doesn't suit the panic agenda of the global warming alarmists!

struth... another freak thread..  ::)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 6:07pm:

struth... another freak thread..  ::)

It enticed you out of the wood pile.

mitasol wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 5:56pm: issuevoter wrote on Nov 13th, 2015 at 4:31pm: I have visited glaciers where signs exhibit photos of the position of the face twenty years ago. Its a good days hike to what's left. The recent loss of ice is induced by the activities of man. I do not believe that is going to change. People are more interested in religion and consumerism. Those same signs also point to previous signs of civilisation which were covered up be an expanding glacier. In one case, a missing WW2 bomber was discovered after a glacier retreated. There is a clue there. But it doesn't suit the panic agenda of the global warming alarmists!

NOTHING suits the alarmists.

Global warming is reducing water supply through developing shortages in snow packs which feed the rivers and dams supplying water to humanity. As the population of the planet grows the water resources shrink.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/global_warming_drains_the_waters_of_life_20151114


Quote:

LONDON—Up to two billion people who depend on winter snow to deliver their summer water could see shortages by 2060 as upland and mountain snowpacks continue to dwindle. An estimated 300 million people could find, 45 years on, that they simply won’t have enough water for all their needs, according to new research. Climate change driven by rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide—in turn, fed by human combustion of fossil fuels—may already be affecting global precipitation. Researchers have consistently found that much of the world’s drylands will increase as global average temperatures rise. But warmer temperatures increasingly also mean the water that once fell as snow, to be preserved until the summer, now falls as winter rain, and runs off directly. The snow that does fall is settling at ever higher altitudes and melting ever earlier. Reliable flow This is bad news for agricultural communities that depend on a reliable flow of meltwater every summer. California is already in the grip of a sustained drought, made worse by lower falls of snow. Great tracts of Asia depend on summer meltwater from the Himalayan massif and the Tibetan plateau. Justin Mankin, an environmental scientist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in the US, and colleagues report in Environmental Research Letters journal that they studied 421 drainage basins across the northern hemisphere. They took account of the water used now and the patterns of population growth, and tested the impact of global warming, using computer simulations of a range of possible future patterns. From this larger picture, they isolated 97 drainage basins that deliver water to two billion people who are reliant on snow on the high ground as a reservoir of summer water. All of these face at least a 67% risk of a decline in stored snow, given the demand for water now. But in 32 of those basins, home to 1.45 billion people, snowmelt is already needed to meet a substantial proportion of demand. “Total human population— and thereby total water demand— will almost certainly increase in the future.” These include northern and central California, the basins of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande in the US West and northern Mexico, the Atlas basin of Morocco, the Ebro-Douro basin that waters Portugal and Spain, and a series of basins in eastern Italy, the southern Balkans, the Caucasus nations, and northern Turkey. It also includes the Shatt al-Arab basin that brings meltwater from the Zagros mountains to Iraq, Syria, eastern Turkey, northern Saudi Arabia, and eastern Iran. Research has linked civil conflict in the region and in other parts of the world with climate change. But although snowpack will continue to decline, the researchers think rainfall will continue to meet demand across most of North America, northern Europe, Russia, China and south-east Asia. There may be no real change for India’s Indus and Ganges basins, which are home to a billion people. And accelerated melting of the glaciers could actually increase water supplies for some central Asian nations, including Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Planning for change The message of the research is that national, regional and civic authorities must start planning for change. “Managers need to be prepared for the possibility of multi-decadal decreases in snow water supply,” Dr Mankin says. “But at the same time, they could have large multi-decadal increases. Both these outcomes are entirely consistent with global warming.” The authors warn that their projections do not consider the water demands of forests and wild things, as they had been focusing on human needs. Nor had they taken into consideration future population growth or migration. “Total human population—and thereby total water demand—will almost certainly increase in the future,” the researchers write. “However, we do not predict changes in total population or the geographic distribution of people, nor the changes in consumption patterns that are likely to accompany future socio-economic changes. “To do so would introduce additional sources of uncertainty, whereas our aim is to isolate the uncertainty from climate change.”

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 15^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

Global warming is reducing water supply through developing shortages in snow packs which feed the rivers and dams supplying water to humanity. As the population of the planet grows the water resources shrink.

Water is one if not the most stable compound on the planet. The water is in the oceans, the ice, aquifers. How is it reducing?

I think, however, your last paragraph is the tell. More humans drawing more of the available water. Not so much global warming, but population. But even then, the effect is transitory, due to expiration, perspiration and urination. Of course urination and personal hygiene water usage are rarely recovered.