Cracks in the Greenland Ice Sheet Are Producing Massive Waterfalls, Raising Scientists' Concerns For Sea Level Rise (washingtonpost.com) 176
At its peak, one meltwater lake drained the equivalent of an Olympic-size swimming pool every three seconds. From a report: A cerulean lake consisting of glacial meltwater on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet, located about 18 miles from where the Store Glacier meets the sea in west Greenland, briefly became one of the world's tallest waterfalls during the course of five hours in July 2018. The waterfall, like many others on the ice sheet's surface, was triggered by cracks in the ice sheet. In the case of this one meltwater lake that scientists closely observed in July 2018, the water cascaded more than 3,200 feet to the underbelly of the glacier, where the ice meets bedrock. There, the water can help lubricate the base of the ice sheet, helping the ice move faster toward the sea.
The observations of scientists, armed with aerial drones and other high-tech equipment, of the partial lake drainage that resulted could help researchers better understand how surface melting of the ice sheet could affect its melt rate, and improve global sea level rise projections. Scientists are keenly interested in how meltwater on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet -- the largest contributor to global sea level rise -- acts to speed up the movement of ice toward the sea by lubricating the underside of the ice surface. The new study, published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that scientists are underestimating the number of melt ponds that partially, and rapidly, drain into the ice sheet each year. This means tweaks may be needed to the computer models used to predict sea level rise from Greenland.
The observations of scientists, armed with aerial drones and other high-tech equipment, of the partial lake drainage that resulted could help researchers better understand how surface melting of the ice sheet could affect its melt rate, and improve global sea level rise projections. Scientists are keenly interested in how meltwater on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet -- the largest contributor to global sea level rise -- acts to speed up the movement of ice toward the sea by lubricating the underside of the ice surface. The new study, published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that scientists are underestimating the number of melt ponds that partially, and rapidly, drain into the ice sheet each year. This means tweaks may be needed to the computer models used to predict sea level rise from Greenland.
Weird - This will lower sea level in Newfoundland (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Greenland ice sheet is so massive that its gravity nudges water into the North Atlantic.
I'd like to see a citation for this.
Re: (Score:3)
Is googling greenland+ice+sheet+gravity really so much of an effort?
Re: (Score:3)
Post Glacial Rebound (Score:4, Informative)
Here you go! The phenomenon is called "post-glacial rebound" and is well understood by geologists. See the section about half way down the page labelled "gravity field." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you had spent your time reading that link, instead of spamming it, you'd have discovered that there is no citation for the above claims, and in fact it is already labelled there that a citation for the claim is needed. It is right to question it.
The only citations are that changes in the gravity field have been detected. There is nothing cited that says anything about it being a big enough effect to make any specific difference in conditions. Just because something was measured, doesn't mean there is evi
Original poster misunderstands Glacial Rebound (Score:3, Informative)
The GGP poster's idea of how post-glacial rebound works is so hopelessly flawed that his conclusions are right out of fantasy.
The processes of sea level rise from melting land ice and of post-glacial rebound operate on utterly different timescales. The effect of meltwater draining off weight-depressed land and raising the sea level worldwide is virtually instantaneous on a geological timescale, whereas it takes many thousands of years for the crust in the affected land area to rebound.
For all intents and p
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Your "gravity field" section is mostly about how the missing ice will allow mantle rock to flow back into the depression, altering the gravitational field of the earth substantially. The original poster was talking about a much smaller, short term effect: the gravitational field of the ice mass itself draws the surrounding sea level up a few millimeters. Were the ice to disappear, it would release that surrounding water, even before the mantle had a chance to react.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's your citation. Mitrovica et al, Nature, 2001, are generally credited with recognizing that previously unexplained non-uniform changes in sea level were due to changes in gravitational forces from land-based ice appearing or disappearing.
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]).
https://geodynamicsprogram.who... [whoi.edu]
I would think that if you were the real Geoffrey Landis that worked for NASA you'd already know about this or would have been capable of looking it up yourself. What gives?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see scientific notation in the summary.
"miles"?
"feet"
Uh...
We use METRIC these days, USA, please catch up!
JPG or it didn't happen (Score:2)
Where is the video
Obvious question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a metric or an imperial Olympic size swimming pool?
Metric of course. The only scholars who busy themselves with archaic units of measurement are archeologists and historians and even then only to figure out the conversion ratio to the metric system.
Re: (Score:2)
So how come there's 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day and seven days in a week but more or less 30 days in a month except when it's 28 but then only in certain years?
Re: (Score:2)
60 has the largest number of prime factors for any number till 100. It can be divided into half hours, 1/3rd hours, 1/4th hours, 1/5th hours and 1/6th hours as well as 1/10th hours.
24 follows naturally once the hour is defined as 60 minutes times 60 seconds as the length of the day is fixed and around 24.25 hrs
Once you have a 24 hr day you get a 365 day year.
As the cycles of the moon are roughly 28-30 days it makes perfect sense to divide the year into 12 months of roughly 28-30 days.
The Cycles of the moon
Re: (Score:2)
Once you have a 24 hr day you get a 365 day year.
Well, you always get 365.25 days days/year, no matter how you divide your day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we divide seconds into milliseconds?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't, I switched a few years ago to nano seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
A typical american post about why "their measuring system is superior." With claims like "dividability", which is basically the stupids thing I ever heard since I learned dividing, which was I guess in second grade.
You basically have everything reversed backward.
The year has 360days, and that is why a circle has 360 degrees. Yes, we all know it is 365.25 days. Ah, and no a day has not 24.25 hours ... it is more 24.0000025 hours or something like that.
It is convenient to divide the 360 degrees into 12 parts,
Re: Obvious question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. In fact a sidereal day is about 4 mnutes shorter than an average solar day, and an average solar day is very close to 24 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately we have to assume that Olympic swimming pools have the same size ... regardless of unit of measurement :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenland lies in Europe (Score:2)
Greenland lies in Europe. Like any other country they use metres there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenland lies in North America. It's ruled from Europe but it is located in North America
Technically it's in Oceania https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org] They're at war with Eurasia.
Re: (Score:2)
I can haz map? I can haz cheeseburder?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
Greenland, USA (Score:5, Funny)
This is why Denmark should sell Greenland to the US. Greenland is clearly broken and leaking all over Canada.
Olympic Pool per Three Seconds? (Score:2)
Hmmm...Olympic Swimming pool dimensions are 50m by 25m by 2m. So 2500 m^3. Call it 833m^3 per second. Which means in ONLYa thousand years, from that one meltwater lake, sea levels will rise by OVER SEVEN CENTIMETERS!!!
Well, got to admit that's a bigger number than I expected. But I still can't find it in myself to get all that worried. When we get an increase rate over 1cm/year, I'll start carin
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a rather crucial part: from that one meltwater lake.
We solved the problem of global warming (Score:2, Offtopic)
There is not a problem of global warming, we solved it. We know how to build safe, affordable, reliable, low CO2 energy. We've known how to do this for decades. We do this with onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, geothermal power, and nuclear fission. From that energy we can produce carbon neutral hydrocarbon based fuels as a one-to-one replacement for the petroleum fuels we use now. If for some reason that is not enough then we can start using carbon negative building materials and agricultural pra
The problem is not solved (Score:2)
Tens of thousands of scientists from all over the planet would disagree with you.
http://ipcc.ch/ [ipcc.ch]
Re: (Score:2)
" The problem is solved."
Tens of thousands of scientists from all over the planet would disagree with you.
Then they are saying that solar cells with batteries are not cheaper than coal. Either solar cells with batteries is cheaper than coal, and therefore we solved the problem of global warming from human activity, or coal is still cheaper than solar power and we need to panic. If there is a third option then please explain that to me.
Since I'm being told repeatedly from many different sources that solar power with batteries is cheaper than coal then we must have solved the problem.
Here's one third option to
Re: (Score:3)
That's 100% false. Every reputable scientist says that a very large problem exists. Economics is irrelevant.
Problem solved! (Re: The problem is not solved) (Score:2)
That's 100% false. Every reputable scientist says that a very large problem exists.
So, then what is preventing us from solving the problem? Once we agree on the science then the solution is just engineering. We know how to build affordable and low CO2 emitting energy sources. I've listed those sources many times, and I'll list them again. This list is onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, geothermal, and nuclear fission. People disagree with this list, they will claim other energy sources like solar is cheaper and lower in CO2 emissions. That still just means we know what the solut
Re: (Score:2)
You fucktard, listen closely, nobody wants nukes, itâ(TM)s never going to happen, no matter how often you dribble your bullshit over the threads. Why not just fuck off and leave the adults to talk.
Listen to the adults talk? You mean like Greta Thunberg? I believe the argument on letting the adults talk was lost when it required bringing out children to cry on camera to make that argument.
Here's why I believe all these global warming alarmists are getting so desperate and so mad, it's because the solution was found without them. They wanted a world powered by wind and sun, and everyone living in some socialist utopia. It turned out that their experiments in powering the world with wind and sun are
Here is hoping it gets faster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting idea. Of course that would sacrifice insignificant places like the United Kingdom for the greater good.
Re: Here is hoping it gets faster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol, of course the desperate attempt to pull as much value out of $9 Trillion in proven oil deposits has nothing to do with your attempt to get people to turn a blind eye to their impending doom
Re: (Score:3)
lol, of course the desperate attempt to pull as much value out of $9 Trillion in proven oil deposits has nothing to do with your attempt to get people to turn a blind eye to their impending doom
Even if everyone were to drive an electric car tomorrow, we will still be using oil for plastics, fertilizer, solvents, jet fuel, diesel, propane, lubricants and many other chemicals for a long time to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Apples to oranges .. the cycle time you are describing is longer than humans have existed on the planet.
So no, saying it'll all be fine a literal geologic age from now is _not_ helpful.
Re:Melt it all (Score:4, Informative)
The glaciers have been melting for 12,000 years
No, the post-glacial melt has pretty much leveled out a few thousands of years ago.
Here's data:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Now zoom into the last 100 years, here's data
https://www.epa.gov/climate-in... [epa.gov]
The 9 inches over the last 140 year is 0.23 meters (if we decide to no measure with body parts). This would work out to 1.6m in 1ka.
This is on par with the melt that was happening 7 thousand years ago, but the concern (as pointed out in this article about Greenland) is that the rate of melt is dramatically accelerating.
The current melt rate puts us closer to 2.6 m in 1ka, but that still doesn't take the continued acceleration into
Re: (Score:2)
Based or orbital cycles we should be headed into an ice age...so your initial assertion is incorrect. And the continents haven't drifted so much since the last glaciation that it would override this effect. It's something else, and the most obvious candidate is CO2 level.
(OK, that's a drastic oversimplification. And clearly CO2 level is the major driver. There are others. And there are feedback relations between them. E.g. CO2 level is a driver for methane which is a driver for CO2.)
Re: (Score:2)
Based or orbital cycles we should be headed into an ice age...so your initial assertion is incorrect.
Sorry, the previous "ice age" ended roughly 12,000 years ago. We are probably 100,000 years away from the next one. With current CO2 levels the chance however is low that it ever happens.
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't through the "current ice age cycle". I'll agree that the cycles take a long time, but the interglacial was/is the aberrant stage. I forget what is supposed to have caused it...ah, obliquity, i.e. the position of the axis
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matt... [mnn.com]
There were other references, but that is the one I glanced through to refresh my memories. The obliquity cycle is about 40,000 years, half that is 20,000 years. Assuming that we spent 10,000 years melting a the end of the melt was another 10,000
Re: (Score:3)
No it isn't. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas.
But we have no influence on water vapor, except by global temperature. We do have a major effect on CO2 (we've increased the amount by more than 35% in the last 100 years).
Regardless, the "driver" of all climate change is the sun
How can the Sun be the driver of climate change, when the Sun hasn't changed itself ?
Re: (Score:2)
Water vapor is, indeed, a much more potent greenhouse gas. But it's not persistent, it's in an equilibrium state which it temperature dependent. So when something else ramps up the temperature, it acts as an amplifier, but it's not the signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the sun impacts climate and weather. This is why it is colder at night than during the day and why summer is warmer than winter. These observations are not new to science.
At the same time, the current observed climate change over the past 100 years isn't caused by the sun. Believe it or not, scientists have actually thought about this [ucsusa.org].
Re: (Score:3)
So, you think in summer the sun sends more heat ... ah ha ....
No, I believe that during summer, we receive more heat because the axial tilt of the earth results in more sunlight hitting my part of the world.
Re: Melt it all (Score:4, Informative)
And yes the sun changes all the time. There are 2 known cycles and likely others we haven't seen yet.
The changes in the Sun's output for the last 100 years are very small (on the order of 0.1%), and do not align with global temperature changes in the same period. Specifically, the sun's output has weakened very slightly since the most recent peak in the 80's. At the same time, global temperature has risen quickly.
And if we haven't seen them yet, how are they supposed to be changing our climate ?
Re: Melt it all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 stays in the air for thousands of years [nationalgeographic.com] and we can keep adding more and more. Unlike water it doesn't just fall out.
CO2 traps heat raising the temperature. Causing the warmer air to hold even more water. Driving the increase more than just the CO2 by itself. The sun is barely even a rounding error.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually sea level has been rising at a more or less steady rate for 20,000 years. Otherwise we would all be living in caves - or dead.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/20... [lewrockwell.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Holocene sea level changes [Re:Melt it all] (Score:2)
Actually sea level has been rising at a more or less steady rate for 20,000 years.
Strike "20,000 years". Substitute "4,000 years".
Four to six thousand years ago is about when the sea-level rise due to the glaciers melting (the "holocene sea level rise") leveled out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Buy cutting CO2 and planing trees we can slow down the process, as we are increasing the rate. Sure they were melting slowly before, but the speed of the melting is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The glaciers have been melting for 12,000 years, and will continue to melt until they are all gone, just like they have done on a cyclical basis for millions of years.
We don't know what fraction of the observed melting is from this cause. Eliminating the human carbon contribution to melting makes long-run sense.
Re:Yet it's gaining ice mass (Score:4, Informative)
OMG, you petrol shills just won't quit when there is money to be made.
Try this on for size, asswipe: https://skepticalscience.com/g... [skepticalscience.com]
Confusion caused by anecdotes of structures being buried by accumulating snow on Greenland's ice sheet leads some skeptics to believe Greenland is Gaining Ice. As always, the best way to tease out the truth here by following the research of scientists investigating Greenland's ice mass balance.
In general, the best available science tells us that Greenland is losing ice extensively (Figure 1) and that these losses have drastically increased since the year 2000.
The evidence suggested by a multitude of different measurement techniques suggests that not only is Greenland losing ice but that these ice losses are accelerating at a rapid pace (Velicogna 2009). Further evidence suggests that although ice losses have up to this point primarily occurred in the South and Southwest portions of Greenland, these losses are now spreading to the Northwest sector of the ice sheet (Khan et al 2010).
Although there have been some gains at high altitudes, significant ice losses are occurring at low altitudes (Wouters 2008) along the coastline where glaciers are calving ice into the oceans far quicker than ice is being accumulated at the top of the ice sheet (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006).
In conclusion Greenland is losing ice extensively along its margins where fast flowing ice streams are pushing more ice into the ocean than is gained in the center of the ice sheet. For more information on how ice sheets lose mass, a more comprehensive discussion is available here.
Basic rebuttal written by Robert way
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, you petrol shills just won't quit when there is money to be made.
He's not a petrol shill. He's just a run of the mill stupid person who believes every fucking conspiracy theory which pops up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are the one cherry picking (Score:2, Informative)
cherry picking troll is obvious cherry picking troll
Who is the cherry picking troll? You post a link from a brief period where the ice levels were falling, while everyone else is showing you the latest data that shows an increase above average since 2017. How is using more current data cherry picking?
The statement "Greenland is currently gaining ice mass" is true if you look at the real data, rather than the rosary beads of warming faith you are clutching.
Re: (Score:2)
shows an increase above average since 2017. How is using more current data cherry picking?
Using current data is good, of course, but 2 years is way too short to tell the difference between a trend and noise.
Greenland ice sheet is losing mass (Score:2, Troll)
The best data on Greenland ice mass is from the GRACE satellite, and that shows that the trend is that it is losing mass:
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/r... [nasa.gov]
http://nsidc.org/greenland-tod... [nsidc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the GRACE satellites are no longer working, and the replacements are not yet producing data, so we are currently in a gap.
Re: (Score:2)
That is indeed unfortunate indeed. But the original GRACE data runs through 2017, and the trend is quite clear.
The GRACE Follow-on ("GRACE-FO) launched a year and a half ago, and the first data release was six months ago. Will be good to get a few years trend, but so far, looks like Greenland is still melting: https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/d... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
The "best" data is the out of date data you happen to agree with?
Greenland is STILL losing ice (Score:2)
The "best" data is the out of date data you happen to agree with?
The best data is the data from GRACE, which is a continuous record of the total ice from 2002 to 2017 [nsidc.org], a long enough run that the year-to-year variations are averaged out.
If you think that the trend line happens to have reversed just exactly when the GRACE data stops (what an extraordinary coincidence! The data supports your assertion only when we're not looking!)-- well, you'd be wrong. The most recent data [nsidc.org] still shows loss of ice, and the GRACE follow on data [nasa.gov] also shows loss of ice.
If you really think 20
Re: (Score:2)
The "best" data is the out of date data you happen to agree with?
Feel free to read the full original article from where the pic was taken and ask yourself if you want to continue the conversation http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland... [www.dmi.dk]
The relevant part quoted for your convenience:
Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.
Re: (Score:2)
The data is noisy, meaning Greenland gains ice mass some years and loses ice mass other years, so if you look at a single year in isolation, depending on the year you pick, you can "prove" pretty much anything you want, even if the long-term data shows the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Antarctica is losing ice mass (Score:2)
Most of the world's ice is in Antarctica, and THAT mass has been growing for decades.
Nope. GRACE data shows Antarctica is losing ice mass; just not as fast as Greenland.
Data comparing Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet changes here: https://globalcryospherewatch.... [globalcryo...ewatch.org]
or more details here: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs11... [columbia.edu] (among other places)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Despite Antarctic Gains
That is literally the first 3 words of the article - the headline. Now, the data is only valid through 2013, because it's old data. But the Antarctic - per NOAA - is gaining ice.
Re:Antarctica is losing ice mass (Score:4, Informative)
NOAA says you're wrong [climate.gov]. I lifted this link from above [slashdot.org], someone trying to prove Greenland is losing ice. Why they chose an Antarctic reference, I don't know, but here is your answer:
Despite Antarctic Gains
That is literally the first 3 words of the article - the headline. Now, the data is only valid through 2013, because it's old data. But the Antarctic - per NOAA - is gaining ice.
And that first word is "despite" , read the rest
Troll
Re: (Score:2)
And that first word is "despite" , read the rest
Troll
I read the rest. I also read this [nasa.gov] from NASA. Antarctica is gaining ice and the ocean surrounding Antarctica has also gained ice with repeated seasonal peaks setting new records. East Antarctica has been gaining an average of 200 billion tons of ice per year since 1992, which far outweighs the increase in loss on the west size, which increased only by 65 billion tons per year in the same period, and is still less than the gain. Antarctica is reducing global sea level height by 0.23mm per year, and has be
Re: (Score:2)
GRACE data shows Antarctica is losing ice mass; just not as fast as Greenland.
Data comparing Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet changes here: https://globalcryospherewatch.... [globalcryo...ewatch.org] or more details here: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs11... [columbia.edu] (among other places)
NOAA says you're wrong [climate.gov].
Sorry, we're talking about different things. The link you gave was about sea ice : that is, the ice floating on top of the ocean surrounding Antarctica (and which, being already floating, does not change sea level when it melts). The data I linked to was about the Antarctic ice sheet ; the ice that is actually on Antarctica.
Two different things. Antarctica (the continent) is losing ice. The sea surrounding it, as the link you gave shows, is pretty much unchanging in the sea ice coverage (the trend lin
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't read past the headline, did we? First paragraph:
Editor's note: Climate.gov reached out to NASA's Claire Parkinson in March 2019 for an update on this analysis. Here's what she had to say:
Global sea ice coverage has continued its overall downward trend since the results described earlier through 2015. The global results combine (1) continued decreases in Arctic sea ice coverage and (2) new decreases in Antarctic sea ice coverage. The new decreases in the Antarctic reverse what had been an overall upward trend in Antarctic sea ice, from 1979 through 2014, to such an extent that, on an annual average basis, the Antarctic sea ice coverage descended to its lowest value in the satellite record in 2017, before rebounding slightly in 2018. This, along with low values in Arctic sea ice coverage, led to the yearly average global sea ice coverage also reaching its lowest value in 2017, with a slight 2018 rebound.
Gotta love it when the trolls link articles that debunk their own horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenland is loosing ice so massively that research teams have trouble to find spots where they can camp and make measurements.
No idea why you pollute /. with your ideology. Everyone knows Greenland is losing ice massively, except you, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Read your own link (Score:5, Insightful)
Try this on for size
Yeah I tried it and found your link was published in 2008, while the graphs the other guy posted are from 2019... care to explain why you are using outdated data?
That's the problem with Climate Alarmists, they always stick to old artifacts of faith instead of looking at what actual scientific studies say over time.
If you want to belong to a death cult that's fine by me, just don't drag the rest of us into your looney belief system.
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
All current 2019 shit here. No rosary beads, not random internet troll condescending anyone. No misinformation.
Superkendall == Troll
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you are to stupid to follow an intelligent discussion.
Those guys started talking about antarctica a while a go ... why you still don't grasp that Greenland is melting.
Why you have problems to grasp that they talk about a different topic than you want to talk is beyond me. You must be a very nerving party guest if you interrupt other peoples topics all the time because you have not grasped they have changed the topic already.
But no worries when you get older you learn: you have two ears to hear and a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Greenland is gaining ice [polarportal.dk], the 2018 year being well above normal.
And your sig gives you away, especially after Greta just stated openly that the "climate alarmists" are about societal change to move us from a "racist, patriarchal" capitalist society to something Socialist. How about you go live in Venezuela of Cuba for a few years, see how that works for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the graphs the other guy posted are from 2019...
The full article from where the data was picked https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
"Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."
Re: (Score:3)
At least, that's what's been happening [archive.org] for the last few years...
You've failed to include the article that goes with the picture, for your convenience here is a link: https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
The relevant part is:
"Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.
In short: the article says the exact opposite of what you believe the picture implies.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, well put
Re: (Score:2)
> who runs
*looks at current dem candidates*
Well, umm. Considering the dem field. Well, that's just a sad looking group.
Even Biden's leg hair can't save that boring dumpster fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said!
Re: (Score:3)
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
NOAA is a primary source. They measure sea levels. That means proof is in fact provided, as is a source by citing them.
If you wish to challenge their claims, you are welcome to conduct public measurements of sea levels on your own and present your findings.
Finally studies you provide do not in fact question NOAA's findings. They merely make a case that models based on NOAA's findings may have incorrect error margins.
Which is frankly given. Complex modelling error margins are all but impossible to calculate
Re: (Score:2)
If sea levels were really a threat, the poster-climate-elites -- some of which have made 100s of millions on scaring the masses, would not own beach front property and ISLANDS.
Hmmmm........
https://www.forbes.com/sites/k... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Buy a submarine. Or, don't buy land on a flood plain, or near the coast. The politicians in control in the nations responsible for the most emissions are continuing to stall progress.
Buying some congressmen would probably work, but you're going to have to outbid oil, coal, the auto industry, the tire companies...
Re: (Score:2)
It already sucks to be a beachfront property owner, except when FEMA is handing out more money to rebuild your vacation cabin.
That is a seriously broken situation for sure. Nobody who gets money because their obviously-gonna-flood-again property should get a permit to rebuild. They should have to take their money somewhere else, someplace not expected to flood.