[Primate]

The hand-wringing about global warming strikes me as a little absurd. As I have stated in another post, there are several reasons for this, some of them superficially contradictory.

First, prepare for warming on one scale or another. Carbon dioxide and other trace gasses will accumulate as we burn through the hydrocarbons, which will happen. Carbon sequestration will not occur because it is too expensive. After 200 or so years, CO2 emissions will taper off, but residual effects will remain for several hundred years after that. There's really nothing that can be done about this--no personal carbon-limiting actions will have an appreciable effect.

It is likely that the climate eventually will resemble that of the mid-Cenozoic, although there may be unkown, or poorly understood variables that will result in a climate that is not perfectly analogous to anything that has occurred before. There could be a colder northern Europe alongside a warmer earth elsewhere. There may be more or less precipitation in a given region. A lot of things may happen that we just cannot predict.

The West Antarctic ice sheet will melt, but nobody knows exactly what will occur to the land-based ice sheets. Maybe melting will ultimately be "faster than expected," though nobody knows what to expect because the variables are not well understood. However, they would all melt if there were more hydrocarbons left to burn.

The melting of sea-based ice adds fresh water, but has little to do with sea-level rise.

Climate always changes, and dramatic climatic fluctuations have occurred in shorter time spans than those occurring at the present time. Specialized agragrian societies depend on relatively constant climate conditions, which is what most people experience during a lifetime. But it is not the reality. The problem isn't climate change, or even anthropogenic climate change, it is how many we are and where and how we live. As I have stated before, if a mile high ice-cap reduces half of North America to rock dust, would it be OK because it is "natural?"

Elsewhen during the Quaternary, during the last interglacial--the Eemian--temperatures were probably higher than they are today and sea levels may have been 200 ft. higher as well. This may also have been the case during the early Holocene, where temperatures may have 1 or 2 degrees C higher than the present.

The earth is not going to fry--or flood--though it will in some places. Yeah, my home in New Orleans is doomed. Still, it is not the end of the world, but it's going to happen.

As Stanley would say, learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.

Now, peak oil really bums me out.

[Zardoz]

Climate always changes, and dramatic climatic fluctuations have occurred in shorter time spans than those occurring at the present time. Specialized agragrian societies depend on relatively constant climate conditions, which is what most people experience during a lifetime. But it is not the reality.

Huh?

Please run that one by us again.

[Primate]

Pardon the stream of consciousness. During both glacial and interglacial episodes extreme temperature fluctuations are recorded in ice cores, sometimes several degrees C in the course of a century. Faunal and floral assemblages, as recording in palynological records and paleontological assemblages are slower to respond, causing "local," though seldom absolute extinction. Prehistoric human popluations (for example, hunting and gathering societies of the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic) repsonded in kind, mostly by adjusting their ranges and/or food sources. By contrast, agricultural societies are less adaptable to climate fluctuations.

[Zardoz]

...agricultural societies are less adaptable to climate fluctuations.

Exactly. That's the point. Rapid climate change that we are beginning to experience is going to be devastating.

Like many have said, it's as if Peak Oil and Global Warming are in a race to determine which one will get us first.

[emersonbiggins]

Just think...56,000 people scattered across the 170,000 (and counting ) square miles of ice-free land. I was just checking their tourism site tonight (remembering fondly a Transatlantic flight I had a couple of months ago) and it seems like a fantastic place when TSHTF. If the climate is farked in the long term, at least Greenland's will only improve with a warming cycle.

How many acres can I buy in Greenland for $10k? I bet I could be a land baron for that small fortune!

[Ayame]

Yes, but can you practice agriculture on it? Might be better for hunting and gathering?

[emersonbiggins]

Might be better for hunting and gathering?

For sure, as is. If the climate becomes more conducive to agriculture (which is a distinct possibility with GW), I could see it becoming more favorable as a settlement, but it's mostly a fishing/whaling economy right now.

[kam30en]

Yah, this will be prime real estate when global warming turns most of the world into a nightmarish wasteland. I am guessing Greenland will be a VERY different place in 100 years. Hopefully the people that live there will be able to prevent hordes of foreigners from showing up, but I seriously doubt it. Northern Canada will be a good place as well.

[Zardoz]

A favorite mantra of the deniers is that Greenland is actually gaining ice because it's supposedly gaining so much around its center. Not so:

NASA: Greenland ice loss far greater than gain

Like I've been saying, we don't need to argue with them. Reality will do our debating for us.

[TheDude]

Like many have said, it's as if Peak Oil and Global Warming are in a race to determine which one will get us first.

Or warheads. Speaking of learning to love the bomb.
You da bomb!

[katkinkate]

You are overreacting guys.

It is good, that this ice is melting.
Once the process is complete, we will move all those starving Africans to Greenland.
They will get new land for free...we will teach them some farming...
We will develope Inuit + African multicultural society...we will get more wealthy consumers to support our expanding economy...

We will also get more water to our oceans... and more water equals more fish...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but what's under the ice on greenland is mostly rock, not soil. And more water in the oceans just dilutes the nutrients, changes the currents and destroys established ecosystems. There may be an abundance of fish in the new areas available eventually (over decades), but not until the populations die off a bit first.

[rockdoc123]

A favorite mantra of the deniers is that Greenland is actually gaining ice because it's supposedly gaining so much around its center. Not so:

NASA: Greenland ice loss far greater than gain

Like I've been saying, we don't need to argue with them. Reality will do our debating for us.

well actually one of the main predictions of all of the GCMs if memory serves me correctly is that the interior of the Antarctic ice mass would increase due to heavier snowfalls while the margins would decrease due to slightly warmer ocean temperatures. Up until the 90s this was happening. The new NASA measurements you mention here sort of throws a monkey wrench in the model predictions as snowfall recently has not increased.

[NEOPO]

A favorite mantra of the deniers is that Greenland is actually gaining ice because it's supposedly gaining so much around its center. Not so:

NASA: Greenland ice loss far greater than gain

Like I've been saying, we don't need to argue with them. Reality will do our debating for us.

well actually one of the main predictions of all of the GCMs if memory serves me correctly is that the interior of the Antarctic ice mass would increase due to heavier snowfalls while the margins would decrease due to slightly warmer ocean temperatures. Up until the 90s this was happening. The new NASA measurements you mention here sort of throws a monkey wrench in the model predictions as snowfall recently has not increased.

Selective memory...........

No, the data concerning Antarctia shows that it was not occuring up until the 90's as some scientist's (global warming skeptics mainly) chose to "believe" that it was.

Antarctic Snowfall Snafu Derails Climate Models

Recent observations of the WAIS, a marine ice sheet with a base below sea level, show that vast quantities of ice are melting at a faster rate than previously recorded. Many observers consider this and an increase in calving icebergs along the Antarctic's margins to be evidence of global warming. The team's findings also counter climate-change skeptics who consider a thickening of Antarctica's enormous ice sheets has stemmed the gradual rise in global sea levels.

Ah yes the "skeptics" who "need more studies".
Now back to the drawing board and figure out a way to continue to poke holes in things such as GLOBAL WARMING - 911 - PEAK OIL ETC ETC........

Now greenland - yes it appears the increased snow fall is maintaining greenlands core while the edges are melting away.
I wonder how long a trend like this can continue as sooner or later it will be snowing not on greenland but on the sea.
The sea that does not reflect sunlight and does not allow snow to accumulate.
The skeptics lean on this as if an ice tower will rise into the heavens which will weigh exactly the same as greenland today...

Hopefully we wont realize that 50 years of greenland data has been flawed as well.
We will probably be living in a waterworld before some people "get it".

[rockdoc123]

The actual paper that this news article is based on is:

Monaghan, A.J., Bromwich, D.H., Fogt, R.L., Wang, S.-H., Mayeweski, P.A., Dixon,
D.A., Ekaykin, A., Frezzotti, M., Goodwin, I., Isaksson, E., Kaspari, S.D., Morgan, V.I., Oerter, H., Van Ommen, T.D., Van der Veen, C.J., and Wen, J. 2006. Insignificant change in Antarctic snowfall since the International Geophysical Year. Science, 313, 827-831

the paper is interesting but merely points to the uncertainties in climate models. The GCM’s currently in use predict increased snowfall in Antarctica due to a warming earth. If the observations by Monaghan et al are correct then the models are wrong and need to be revisited…so much for the science is over.
Further Monaghan note that they cannot refute that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet actually became thicker between 1992 and 2003 which was proven through radar measurements by Davis et al, 2005, simply that they cannot explain that thickening by increased snowfall. A quote from the Davis et al paper:

Davis, C.H., Li, Y. McConnell, J.R., Frey, M.M. and Hanna, E. 2005. Snowfall-driven
growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise. Science, 308, 1898-1901

Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year

So if the thickening isn't due to increased snowfall what then? perhaps cooling rather than warming? Suggests more work needs to be done to me.
The increased mass balance of the Antarctic Ice sheet is also pointed to by a recent paper by Van de Berg et al, 2006 where they took all available mass balance observations and used them to recalibrate a climate model used to gather a best estimate of that mass balance. Their results suggest the ice sheet is growing at a greater rate than previously suggested and note that the only way they can refine this further is to acquire additional mass balance measurements from areas which are currently poorly sampled.
Van de Berg, W.J., van den Broeke, M.R., Reijmer, C.H., and van Meijgaard, E. 2006.
Reassessment of the Antarctic surface mass balance using calibrated output of a regional amtospheric climate model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029/2005JD006495

[NEOPO]

The sentiment was "debate is over" and it applied to man made climate change and again the debate....is over.

More work may need to be done to understand exactly what is happening to greenland's ice yes but I would not be surprised to find that someone made calculation errors or that it is simply something that will occur as the climate changes.
hot here cold there wet here dry there etc etc...

The whole of the science hardly rests with GCM's.
Recent data has shown that GCM's are relevant and seem to be fairly accurate yet of course they are still "play things" in this field - things that make scientist go "hmmm" yet no one takes the computers predictions as 100% accurate and little has been based on these predictions.
I am sure this will change although once we are convinced that the computer knows enough I do not believe we are going to like what it tells us.

As I suggested previously - extrapolate the current Greenland data and we end with a tower of ice stacked to the moon.....if this displacement is actually occurring it cannot last for long and just imagine what would happen when this massive ice cube finally goes plop.

Anyways let us hope that the computers worse case scenario is incorrect yet knowing what we do about peak oil et al. I have a hard time believing the worst will not come to pass:
Global-warming forecasts: from bad to worse

[Tanada]

Although the ice mass loss observed in the new study is less than half of what other recent research has reported, the results show that Greenland is now losing 20% more mass than it receives from new snowfall each year. "This is a very large change in a very short time," said Zwally. "In the 1990's, the ice sheet was growing inland and shrinking significantly at the edges, which is what climate models predicted as a result of global warming. Now the processes of mass loss are clearly beginning to dominate the inland growth, and we are only in the early stages of the climate warming predicted for this century."

NASA confirms Greenland is only replacing 80% of annual ice melt along the coasts. GREENLAND

[NEOPO]

ok i get it - they are from venus and want earth to be like venus!!

you explain it then!!!

[turmoil]

The Oil drum

Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier on the east coast of Greenland has been clocked using GPS equipment and satellites to be flowing at a rate of 14km per year. It is also losing mass extremely fast, with its front end retreating 5km back up its fjord this year alone. The glacier "drains" about 4% of the ice sheet, dumping tens of cubic km of fresh water in the North Atlantic.

[basil_hayden]

Quick - turn off your computer, sell your car and move into the yurt that's caught your eye, maybe it'll go back the way it was.

It's great how far remote sensing has come along. We should be able to televise the apocalypse.

[frankthetank]

Sad to see all that water go to waste. Could be using it to flood the Sahara so we could grow corn/soy and drive around in are cars more on ethanol.

Thats true, they should put realtime webcams on the bergs so we can watch them melt live, it would be better then whats on tv.