FYI Greenland ice loss rates 'one-third' of what was thought

shamwow

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
66,888
709
41
Marklar
0.40₥
interesting stuff. lol, global warming! THE SKY IS FALLING

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/07/revised_ice_loss_estimates/
The rate at which ice is disappearing from Greenland and Western Antarctica has been seriously overestimated, according to new research.
Contrasting estimates of Greenland ice melt. Previous analysis in blue: New in red. The colour bands represent uncertainty. Credit: Nature Geoscience

'Deviates rather sharply from general assumptions' - Yes.

Measuring a disappearing ice cap is actually quite difficult to do, as the areas in question are remote, hostile environments and the exact depth of ice is often unknown. This has caused a lot of argument among climate scientists regarding how much ice is melting and running into the sea, as this affects predictions of sea-level rise and other aspects of climate modelling. (Floating sea ice, like that which makes up most of the Arctic cap apart from Greenland, is less of an issue as its melting doesn't affect the sea level.)

Thus it is that since 2002, NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data has been used to make an estimate of ice melt from Greenland and Western Antarctica. (The rest of Antarctica doesn't seem to be melting at all - indeed Antarctica as a whole is actually gaining ice area rather than losing it - but some regions in the West are melting. The reasons for this are under investigation.)

The original GRACE-based estimates indicated as much as 1,500 billion tonnes ice loss just from Greenland in the period 2003-2009 - equivalent to a global sea-level rise of over 4mm on its own. However it has since become clear that these numbers weren't properly corrected for the phenomenon of "rebound", where the Earth's crust rises as ice is removed. GPS precise-location devices fixed to bedrock outcrops in Antarctica showed this last year, but nobody was sure how bad the errors were.

Now a team of researchers based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and in the Netherlands say they have the answer.

"The corrections for deformations of the Earth’s crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year," explains Dr Bert Vermeersen. "We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted."

Vermeersen and his colleagues' calculations show that as little as 500 gigatonnes of ice or even less could have melted from Greenland during 2003-2009, translating into less than 2mm of sea-level rise. In the case of Greenland, it could be that the current estimates are triple what they should be.

"For Greenland in particular, we have found a glacial isostatic adjustment model that deviates rather sharply from general assumptions," says Vermeersen.

Both the JPL/Dutch team and other boffins examining the work caution that more GPS locators need to be attached to the bedrock in order to refine the results.

For those who'd like to know more, a statement issued yesterday by Vermeersen's university is here. The new research can be read here by subscribers to Nature Geoscience, and analysis of it by independent expert boffins likewise here
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,140
41
Brandon, FL
Marklar
36,129.62₥
Right, so lets just keep forging ahead and burn through non-renewable resources at whatever pace we see fit, cause, you know, scientists are all fruitcakes.

Truth, Fantasy, whichever, it's brought about the concept of living within the environment more to the forefront where it should be.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
67,503
19,764
1,073
Marklar
46,624.23₥
Steam
mattressfish
And lets not forget all the Antarctic ice that is actually INCREASING. iirc, the Earth has regrown all the Antarctic sea ice it lost in the last 20 years in like a year or two. :lol:
 

Casper

Bobbert Cheapstein
Oct 6, 2009
8,299
365
41
Marklar
0.00₥
Even if burning all the oil on the planet isn't enough to drastically affect air quality, global warming, etc. It doesn't answer the riddle of wtf are we going to do when we run out.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
33,920
8,399
473
38
Oz
Marklar
25,442.40₥
Even if burning all the oil on the planet isn't enough to drastically affect air quality, global warming, etc. It doesn't answer the riddle of wtf are we going to do when we run out.
Big oil probably has that answer already, but want to milk every last penny from oil..
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
101,825
36,442
1,823
Houston
Marklar
59,053.42₥
Right, so lets just keep forging ahead and burn through non-renewable resources at whatever pace we see fit, cause, you know, scientists are all fruitcakes.

Truth, Fantasy, whichever, it's brought about the concept of living within the environment more to the forefront where it should be.
Shut up, hippy.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
33,920
8,399
473
38
Oz
Marklar
25,442.40₥
Not true. To build an infrastructure like we have for oil would taken something like 20 years, and thats a best case scenario. The problem is that no one is starting on it, because we don't have anything.
I love how you know for certain about everything.


What are this weeks lotto numbers?
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,365
430
41
42
Austin
Marklar
663.49₥
If only there was a way to scale back civilization a bit and focus on wind and solar energy and fewer iPhones and not being fabulous all the time.

The entire Western U.S. should be blanketed in solar panels at this point, generating 80 quintillion niggawatts. That's enough for some seriously pimpin' automobiles and DDR machines.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: 1 person