Greenland Lost 586 Billion Tons of Ice In 2019 129
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Associated Press: Greenland lost a record amount of ice during an extra warm 2019, with the melt massive enough to cover California in more than four feet (1.25 meters) of water, a new study said. After two years when summer ice melt had been minimal, last summer shattered all records with 586 billion tons (532 billion metric tons) of ice melting, according to satellite measurements reported in a study Thursday. That's more than 140 trillion gallons (532 trillion liters) of water. That's far more than the yearly average loss of 259 billion tons (235 billion metric tons) since 2003 and easily surpasses the old record of 511 billion tons (464 billion metric tons) in 2012, said a study in Communications Earth & Environment. The study showed that in the 20th century, there were many years when Greenland gained ice.
"Not only is the Greenland ice sheet melting, but it's melting at a faster and faster pace," said study lead author Ingo Sasgen, a geoscientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. Last year's Greenland melt added 0.06 inches (1.5 millimeters) to global sea level rise. That sounds like a tiny amount but "in our world it's huge, that's astounding," said study co-author Alex Gardner, a NASA ice scientist. Add in more water from melting in other ice sheets and glaciers, along with an ocean that expands as it warms -- and that translates into slowly rising sea levels, coastal flooding and other problems, he said.
"Not only is the Greenland ice sheet melting, but it's melting at a faster and faster pace," said study lead author Ingo Sasgen, a geoscientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. Last year's Greenland melt added 0.06 inches (1.5 millimeters) to global sea level rise. That sounds like a tiny amount but "in our world it's huge, that's astounding," said study co-author Alex Gardner, a NASA ice scientist. Add in more water from melting in other ice sheets and glaciers, along with an ocean that expands as it warms -- and that translates into slowly rising sea levels, coastal flooding and other problems, he said.
Lost? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, where did it leave it last?
It's right over there, next to your lost car keys
Re: (Score:2)
No one could think of a better way to get ice: https://youtu.be/gm5We9q00Lg [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lost? (Score:2)
Depends on the map.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ocean. Enjoy the rising sea levels and say hi to what's left of Florida in 20 years.
Politics has failed miserably, it's time to start the geoengineering.
(I'm semi serious...)
Re: Lost? (Score:2)
And who's gonna start it?
Politics. *ba-dum TISS*
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but only because it's a message politicians won't mind selling/paying for. It makes the look like they're fixing something.
The "Tighten your belts, stop driving SUVs to massive shops full of single-use crap" message doesn't get them elected.
Re: Lost? (Score:3)
Just more anecdotal evidence that you exist (and are partisan/retarded).
Re: Lost? (Score:2)
Ice has morphic qualities, like the T-1000 or Odo, it can sort of slip away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whenever I see tons I automatically assume metric tons. Then you'd transform it to water volume where 1 m3 weighs one ton.
586 000 000 000 - converted to km3 means that it's 586 km3.
Re: (Score:3)
No matter the measurement, investing in low lying 'underwater front' real estate would not be the wisest move at this time.
Keep in mind when they talk sea level rise, they are talking about it aligned with the gradual average of climate change. Not taking into account the vagaries of weather and how those short term extremes can trigger major climate change in a short period of time.
Adding in the release of massive amount of not only frozen methan hydrates but newly produced methane from a far more active
Re:BeauHD is a MENTAL REJECT (Score:4, Interesting)
No matter the measurement, investing in low lying 'underwater front' real estate would not be the wisest move at this time.
Except if you are in Greenland! Water level around Greenland actually get lower as the ice there melts due to gravity! As the ice melts, Greenland loses mass thus loses pull on water around it making the sea level lower there...
https://www.catholic.org/news/... [catholic.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, it is both and the effects add up:
https://www.sciencemag.org/new... [sciencemag.org]
Right now, that ice is a huge weight pushing down Earth’s crust in and around Greenland. So when it’s gone, that land will pop up. An intact ice sheet also has a noticeable gravitational pull, which attracts water to the region. No ice means that water will rush away. Both of those effects actually add up to lower sea levels in the area right around the former ice sheet,
Re: (Score:1)
No matter the measurement, investing in low lying 'underwater front' real estate would not be the wisest move at this time.
Ben Shapiro disagrees. He has buyers lined up.
Real estate [Re:BeauHD is a MENTAL REJECT] (Score:2)
No matter the measurement, investing in low lying 'underwater front' real estate would not be the wisest move at this time.
Not actually true. Sea level rise due to climate change is real, but it is a long term effect-- we're talking about less than a meter of rise over the course of a century.
Most people just don't worry about this time scale. As long make sure you're a few feet above high tide, you're fine for a reasonable period. Somebody else will worry about it.
Keep in mind when they talk sea level rise, they are talking about it aligned with the gradual average of climate change.
Exactly.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, they are talking about an accelerating 1cm rise over the next 6 years. It's likely it will be very close 1" per decade in 6 years.
And to get a 1.5 meter change over the next century, it's going to average 15 centimeters per decade. So it might be 3"-4" over the next 20 years. During a storm that gets multiplied into a 9-12" difference. Which can inundate some areas. It also means water falling on land can't run off as quickly so you'll see more inland flooding.
But you know.. frankly so many
Re: (Score:2)
Re:BeauHD is a MENTAL REJECT (Score:4, Funny)
586 000 000 000 - converted to km3 means that it's 586 km3.
Wow, so easy! Not like converting pounds to cubic furlongs. Why isn't everyone using metric?
Re: BeauHD is a MENTAL REJECT (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
What about matriotism?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Why isn't everyone using metric?
It's not a panacea.
I live in Spain. Here the rainfall on weather reports is always given in liters per square meter.
(which is truly fucked up, but nobody else seems to notice...)
Re: (Score:2)
In Sweden it's provided in millimeters. Which kind of makes sense - the level it would have had if it hadn't drained away.
Re: (Score:2)
And the nice part is you just add a zero to convert one to the other.
Nope. You do nothing to convert.
"Liters per square meter" and "millimeters" are exactly the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In case anyone doesn't know the reference, it's from the movie "My Fair Lady"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: BeauHD is a MENTAL REJECT (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1 gallon or 3.785 litres really makes no difference to me.
But the fact that your gallon is different to my gallon of 4.55 litres tells me where you live :-)
It makes a lot of difference if a Canadian aircraft accidentally fills the tank in US gallons.
(Does any other country routinely sells milk in such large containers? Everything in the US seems to be super-sized. I still can't quite believe the 20 and 30oz coffee cups at Starbucks etc. )
Re: (Score:2)
No need to assume, TFS quotes both numbers.
By my reckoning, it's the equivalent of losing a little over 10 inches of ice over the entire area of Greenland.
Re:BeauHD is a MENTAL REJECT (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad assumption.
Good assumption. A ton and a tonne only differ by 10%.
For ballpark estimates, they are the same.
Re: (Score:2)
enough to cover California in more than four feet (1.25 meters) of water,
Just think how high it would be if they poured it all into New Jersey!
Wait, Maryland! Not sure which is smaller
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lost? (Score:2)
Mmmh, do tell us again... who took Alaska?
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmh, do tell us again... who took Alaska?
Nobody. Alaska was purchased, not taken. The Russians were looking to sell Alaska following the end of the Crimean war in 1856. The US took them up on their offer in 1867.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase
Goodbye Florida (Score:4, Funny)
Only Florida Man can save you now!
Re: (Score:2)
Not if Gray [youtube.com] kills him first.
So? (Score:3)
It is named wrong anyway.
We want to see some of that green!!
Re: (Score:2)
Prime farm lots are going fast! For more information, please contact Viking Realty.
Serious inquiries only. Please, no agents.
Should have sold to US when they had the chance (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Should have sold to US when they had the chanc (Score:1)
It will come back in the Fall (Score:4, Informative)
"you know, a lot of people think that it comes back in October as the heat goes away. Typically, that will go away in October. We’re in great shape though."
"It will come back, just stay calm," he said of the glaciers Tuesday. He added, "Be calm. It's really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen."
In other news, plans are under way for The Wall to be extended around the Florida coastline. And it will be beautiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It will come back in the Fall (Score:5, Insightful)
All of us.
The hiking trail that I use, stayed the same for decades. Now it seems to be washed away with holes that are over a food deep after a rain storm. The government who owns that trail. will go in and fix it (from my tax dollars). As well as the road next to that trail, seems to be eroding away at a much faster rate, and needs rebuilding all of the time.
We all pay for global warming.
On the good side... (Score:2)
We haven't had such alarm since 2012 (Score:1)
This leads me to ask the next logical question (Score:2)
What was the loss or gain of ice in Antarctica during this period?
Re:This leads me to ask the next logical question (Score:5, Informative)
You can't compare. Antarctica covers most of the south-polar region while Greenland is only the largest island in the arctic.
Antarctica's loss was of course much much larger than Greenland's.
There is no land on the North Pole itself, instead there being sea ice. The arctic sea ice used to stretch from Siberia to North America all year around, but does now retract in summer opening a North-East passage, and soon a North-West passage as well.
Re:This leads me to ask the next logical question (Score:5, Informative)
We tend to look at these things averaged over decades, but the amount that Greenland lost this year is likely larger than Antarctica. Typically we see a bit of ice gain over the ice caps in Antarctica and a greater amount of ice lost around the coasts.
Turning the data from the satellites that measure this from engineering units into science measurements is my day job.
Take a look at:
Shepherd, A. et al. Trends in Antarctic Ice Sheet Elevation and Mass. Geophysical Research Letters 46, 8174 – 8183 (2019).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and hot off the presses:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Antarctica has a different problem, which is collapsing ice shelves. Because those shelves are already floating in water, they don’t raise sea level directly. However, when they go, then the glaciers that feed them will accelerate and begin putting more ice into the ocean.
lack of smoke and sulfur (Score:1)
Likewise, global desulfurization of ships' bunker fuel this past year removed huge amounts of "protective" sulfates.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't just the Meltwater (Score:5, Interesting)
The ice is melting because of an average temperature rise. But that temperature rise carries through in to the ocean itself. Water - including sea water - achieves maximum density at about 39 degrees farenheit (4 degrees centigrade). So above that, the water in the ocean will begin to expand, raising sea levels. This year's Greenland ice melt might be "only" 586 cubic kilometres of ice. But the impact on sea levels doesn't come only from that, but from the thermal expansion of all the water in the ocean.
And it might be worth noting that the Atlantic ocean contains an estimated 310.4 million cubic kilometres of water (it covers roughly 20% of the entire Earth's surface and is nearly 8.5 kilometres deep at its deepest point). If you were to raise the temperature of that volume by a few degrees, the thermal expansion would be far, far more impactful along coastlines. You know, like the entire eastern seaboard of the United States.
Other things to bear in mind:
A change in sea temperatures around Greenland has a direct impact upon the Gulf Stream - the oceanic current that lifts warmer tropical ocean water up the eastern seaboard. If that circular flow of water is disrupted and the Gulf Stream current slows or falters, that will actually significantly *reduce* land temperatures as far north as Nova Scotia and beyond.
Although only slight in absolute terms, the melting of freshwater ice from Greenland will reduce ocean salinity, disrupting entire ecosystems. This will absolutely include massive disruption to all the fishing industries from Maine to Florida.
Perhaps the most direct threat, however, would be a significant uptick in the number of hurricanes forming in the tropical Atlantic Ocean. A hurricane is a tropical storm that draws its energy from the warmth of an ocean (warm water evaporates more easily). To form, a hurricane needs water at least 26.5 centigrade down to a depth of 50 metres (~165 feet). But with the ocean itself warming, the probability of hurricane conditions forming will steadily increase. See here [noaa.gov] for details.
Scarily big deal.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fundamentally, the people that frequent slashdot tend to be of a technical disposition. "Show me the facts" is basically another variation of "Talk is cheap - Show me the code" - the acceptance that opinion becomes less significant with a solid, factual foundation.
So my intent was to share with readers the ideas that this isn't simply about meltwater in the Arctic. Not just because the Arctic extends all the way south the Antartica, but because "the meltwater" has the *potential* to be a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It sounds like he's been listening to the scientists. It's scary stuff [www.ipcc.ch], and he didn't even get into the effects of acidification and oxygen loss, water quality and disease impacts from cryosphere melting, algal blooms... Perhaps you should read it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, 3 degrees rise means about 1% increase in net energy, and just a fraction of 1% increase in the number and severity of storms.
I do predict a 476% increase in the hyperventillation as each hurricane arrives.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All of which is to say that Greenland and Iceland have had exactly this sort of climate scenario before, and were able to recover to what the
Re:It isn't just the Meltwater (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, if you look back through the history of *really* early earth, i.e. before the emergence of "dinosaurs", the earth was an incredibly hostile place for a lot of the time, with an atmosphere that would have killed us as quickly as we could try to breathe it.
All of which tells me that yes, maybe, to quote Jeff Goldblum, "Life will find a way...". But "life" doesn't have to include us...
Re: (Score:2)
Scales of time are different, but at one point Antartica was covered in tropical forest. I'm just not sure if the rest of the planet was habitable at that point in time!
It was, because during the Paleocene and Eocene most of the planet was. The megathermal forest extended up and down to 50 degrees latitude. That was a very long time ago though. Antarctica has been near the pole for many millions of years at this point. It only moves a few millimeters per year.
In fact, if you look back through the history of *really* early earth, i.e. before the emergence of "dinosaurs", the earth was an incredibly hostile place for a lot of the time, with an atmosphere that would have killed us as quickly as we could try to breathe it.
All of which tells me that yes, maybe, to quote Jeff Goldblum, "Life will find a way...". But "life" doesn't have to include us...
On the timescales you are referring to, life is guaranteed not to include us. We are not sharks or alligators. And even the sharks and alligators won't be around for the timescales you describe. The Great White
oh well (Score:2)
16th of an inch (Score:2)
It's a bit alarming that the sea level has risen by an amount I can actually perceive on a ruler even without my glasses.
Why did no one warn us!?
Re: (Score:3)
Incidentally, "Why did no one warn us!?" is likely to become a common question in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
You are being warned now.
It was sarcasm, we were warned for more than a century.
"Oh, the next lot can sort it out..."
Re: (Score:2)
So if annual sea level rise is 3.3mm, seas will rise 1 meter in 300+ years? Got it, thanks.
IOW, Greenland lost 0.0186% of Total Ice in 2019 (Score:2)
Let's see ...
Wikipedia sez there are 684,000 cu mi of Ice on the Greenland Ice Cap. see: ahref=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet/rel=url2html-31145 [slashdot.org]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...>
This is about 100,683,399,168,000,000 cubic feet of ice ( 5280 * 5280 * 5280 * 684,000 )
At 62.427 lb / cubic foot, we have 6,285,362,559,860,736,000 pounds of Ice on Greenland which is 3,142,681,279,930,368 tons of Ice.
Finally, ( 586,000.000.000 loss ) / ( 3,142,681,279,930,368 total ) * 100 = 0.018646 %
If
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Good Catch jbengt
I thought of that after I pressed [Submit]
That would change the percentage to 0.02028
Thanks !
-- kjh
Two monitors (Score:2)
When I wander around the office, it's comical to see all the unused white space on people's monitors, especially those of the non-technical folks (shipping, receptionist).
(An aside, did you know that optical mice use ~ 5 times the power of ball mice? I wonder if it would noticeably increase laptop battery times.)
Re: (Score:2)
it's comical to see all the unused white space on people's monitors
Ban Python.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did they break down the percentages... (Score:2)
... between "climate change" and "sitting atop an active volcano" melts?
And yet... (Score:2)
Buried in the one-page article heavily copied from for the summary there is this:
As massive as the melt was last year, the two years before were only on average about 108 billion tons (98 billion metric tons).
This year [2020],Greenland’s summer melt has been not as severe, closer to normal for recent times, said Ruth Mottram, an ice scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute, who wasn’t part of Sasgen’s research.
So the two years prior ice melt was minimal, 2019 was a record, and 2020 is shaping up to be 'normal'... So what caused 2019 to be so bad, ice melt-wise, and why were 2017, 2018, and apparently 2020 normal/minimal ice loss summers?
That was me (Score:2)
My refrigerator conked out, so ...
Old news... (Score:2)
Last year's Greenland melt added 0.06 inches (1.5 millimeters) to global sea level rise.
This is some bullshit number they're models spat out - how do you precisely measure a 0.06 inch increase in ocean levels around the globe? What is the margin of error on this? Not all that ice went into the ocean, perhaps we're also seeing more evaporation, more winter snowfall, more rain and a million other things. Again, even if it was an 0.06 inch increase, this is nothing
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like a huge number, but the ice it has must be a much bigger number. I hate figures like this with no context. It smells of agenda.
Agenda? More like untidy scientific reporting. It is not hard to find information about the total amount of Greenland ice. It's 2.85 million cubic kilometres, and if it all melted, it would raise sea levels by 7.2 m:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So yeah, this year's melt is a small dent in the Greenland ice sheet. But the melt appears to be accelerating, and it is not the only contributor to rising sea levels. From TFA:
Last year’s Greenland melt added 0.06 inches (1.5 millimeters) to global sea level rise. That sounds like a tiny amount but “in our world it’s huge, that’s astounding,” said study co-author Alex Gardner, a NASA ice scientist. Add in more water from melting in other ice sheets and glaciers, along with an ocean that expands as it warms — and that translates into slowly rising sea levels, coastal flooding and other problems, he said.
Re: (Score:1)
It is not hard to find information about the total amount of Greenland ice. It's 2.85 million cubic kilometres, and if it all melted, it would raise sea levels by 7.2 m:
"When it melts it will raise sea levels by 7.2 m"
FTFY.
Re: What percentage is that? (Score:2)
No, it actually smells of an agenda.
It seems to be my agenda. (Keeping the planet's life alive. Not humanity.)
I just would not try any such underhanded assholery as deliberately throwing big numbers with no context into the ring for the purpose of baiting people
Are we really so partisan, aka not actual people but drones of a hive person, that we're abusing moderation to mod somebody as (-1, Flamebait), for saying thatsomebody who speaks for our side is making our side look bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Darn skippy it sounds like an agenda. (Score:2)
It smells of agenda.
Sure does. The issue is rising sea levels. Yet they expressed the melt in how deep it would be over the area of California (1an .25 meters ~= 4.10 feet) - literally a drop in a bucket compared to the world ocean.
California area: 654,784 sq mi
World ocean area: 139,700,000 sq mi
4.1 feet over CA ~= 0..00480 feet ~= 0.05765 in
So it would raise the world ocean by less than a 17th of an inch.
An inch or so per generation doesn't sound like an immediate crisis.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the subtle difference between linear growth and accelerated growth. If for instance, the ice sheet melts on average 1.2 times as much than the year before, it doubles every four years. And because it adds up, after 8 year, we have a sea level one inch higher. And two inches are reached after 11 years. A foot after 20 years. And a yard after 25 years.
Re: (Score:2)
"A foot after 20 years. And a yard after 25 years."
Give it up. They'll believe it when the water reaches their lower lip.
Re: Darn skippy it sounds like an agenda. (Score:2)
If only it would, withour reaching ours.
Re:Darn skippy it sounds like an agenda. (Score:5, Interesting)
Coastlines also slope at a 100:1 average. Some places are much worse, while others are steep cliffs of course. But every inch of sea level rise means the shore comes inland around 100 inches. But that's nothing compared to what it does to storm surge distances. The rise also means the removal of sand from some beaches, which means the sea comes in further to chew away cliff edges... which often have homes built on them.
Coastal cities dominate culture, and have for millennia. Those cities are under threat, some more than others. New York and San Francisco, the absolute cultural hubs of the nation, are both under serious threat from sea level rise. Cue the jokes about washing away the rats and the turds, sure. But you're not going to like the outcome when they're washed away.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not just Greenland, and it all added up to a quarter inch [climate.gov] last year alone. Every four inches (16 years) or rising levels pushes high tide lines around 100-130 feet further inland (slope depending), and roughly triples the chance [theconversation.com] of severe flood events, meaning a once-in-a-hundred-year flood will now happen every 33 years, on average - and 16 years after that, it's every 11 years.
Our past emissions have already guaranteed ourselves another 6 inches of sea level rise, even if we stopped emitting overnigh
Re: (Score:2)
How's your coastline [noaa.gov] looking?
Interesting link. I lived in Houston for several years, so I checked what would happen there with a 10 ft rise in sea level, the max offered by the tool. Of course, Galveston is under water, but 99% of Houston is high and dry. Same with LA. Same with Seattle. Same with most of NYC. Even most of New Orleans is dry according to the NOAA tool. Didn't spend too much time on it, but the only major city I found that was swamped was Miami.
A 10 ft sea level rise is quite a ways away. If you want to get pe
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh. Why do you think it's called Greenland? It sure as hell isn't because of all the fucking ice.
Re:It looses ice, it gains ice... *yawn* (Score:5, Informative)
The early Norse settlers named the island as Greenland. In the Icelandic sagas, the Norwegian-born Icelander Erik the Red was said to be exiled from Iceland for manslaughter. Along with his extended family and his thralls (i.e. slaves or serfs), he set out in ships to explore an icy land known to lie to the northwest. After finding a habitable area and settling there, he named it Grnland (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers. The Saga of Erik the Red states: "In the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it had a favorable name."
Re: (Score:2)
Well if Texas uses more wind generators, and probably takes advantage of solar better. I will be fine with you keeping your home cool in your hot region of your home.