Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting Faster Than Scientists Previously Estimated, Study Finds 86
Scientists have underestimated recent mass loss from Greenland by as much as 20%, finds a new study published in the journal Nature. CBS News reports: Since 1985, Greenland's ice sheet has lost approximately 5,091 square kilometers of ice researchers found using satellite imagery. Scientists said earlier estimates did not track melting at the edges of the ice sheets, known as calving, which measures ice breaking off at the terminus of a glacier. Greenland's ice sheet loses about 193 square kilometers of ice per year, researchers found. Study co-author Chad Greene and his colleagues said they qualified the extent of calving, which increased the scope of ice mass lost.
They combined "236,328 observations of glacier terminus positions" compiled from various public data sets to capture monthly ice melt. Their measurements found that between 1985 and 2022, almost every glacier in Greenland experienced some level of loss. [...] Researchers in the study noted that "this retreat does not appear to substantially contribute to sea level rise" because most of the glacier margins the scientists measured were already underwater. The loss, however, may play a part in ocean circulation patterns, and how heat energy is distributed across the planet.
They combined "236,328 observations of glacier terminus positions" compiled from various public data sets to capture monthly ice melt. Their measurements found that between 1985 and 2022, almost every glacier in Greenland experienced some level of loss. [...] Researchers in the study noted that "this retreat does not appear to substantially contribute to sea level rise" because most of the glacier margins the scientists measured were already underwater. The loss, however, may play a part in ocean circulation patterns, and how heat energy is distributed across the planet.
Well, I'm so glad. (Score:5, Funny)
I'll have to wait less for my waterfront property to form.
Re:Well, I'm so glad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it will last a few years. I'm old, I have a shorter planning horizon than most. I should vote big oil, coal-rolling, Trump and "traditional values" every day of the week and twice on a Tuesday ;)
Re:Well, I'm so glad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly I think that's a big part of the problem we have right now. Too many people think that they won't be badly affected in their lifetimes, so there is no reason for them to alter their lifestyle at all. Even if it means a better lifestyle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I wasn't joking.
Re: (Score:2)
"Traditional Trump values" that evangelical supprots love, like getting revenge, pussy grabbing, lying, and other virtues mentioned in the Bible. Because traditional GOP values are all RINO now. The only "traditional" thing they have is believing that coal is modern technology.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, this stuff managed to occupy the mainstream of US politics...
Re: (Score:2)
The most important goal for them to attract voters seems to be undocumented migrants, but the most time and effort spent was on blocking the budget, attacking others in their own party, and praising Trump. They've gone from grand old party to goofy old party. Dems used to be a laughing stock but surprisingly they seem to have the upper hand on decorum.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll have to wait less for my waterfront property to form.
And then you'll be able to sell it to Aquaman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Well, I'm so glad. (Score:1)
Here's a video showing why the melting ice sheet won't cause rising water levels.
https://youtu.be/GvPw4waYmik?s... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a video showing why the melting ice sheet won't cause rising water levels.
https://youtu.be/GvPw4waYmik?s... [youtu.be]
We knew that because the blurb above already told us:
Researchers in the study noted that "this retreat does not appear to substantially contribute to sea level rise" because most of the glacier margins the scientists measured were already underwater. The loss, however, may play a part in ocean circulation patterns, and how heat energy is distributed across the planet.
Your point being?
Shelf or sheet [Re: Well, I'm so glad.] (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a video showing why the melting ice sheet won't cause rising water levels.
More specifically, melting an ice shelf (floating ice) won't cause rising water levels. Melting ice sheet (ice sitting on solid ground) will cause rising water levels.
See
https://education.nationalgeog... [nationalgeographic.org]
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/unde... [nasa.gov]
for the distinction between ice sheets and ice shelves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What if you just let ppl openly migrate to the new lush Greenland?
Re:So the scientists (Score:4, Funny)
"What if you just let ppl openly migrate to the new lush Greenland?"
Because Trump might buy it next year.
Re: So the scientists (Score:1)
Re:So the scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
30 years later, with actual results, we have to notice that the 1990 IPCC report was spot on, and the changes are rather at the upper end of the possible ranges. All the oh so important processes which would balance out the climate have been proven much to weak to change the trajectory as originally projected. The science was sound and made the right predictions, independent on what political propagandists were proclaiming.
With the Greenland Ice shield, we have a similar case. Early estimations were higher, but political pressure caused scientists to downplay the rate of change. And now you are applying the same political pressure again, despite it has proven at best to be somewhat misguided. And additionally, you use some factoid no climate scientist has ever published, but probably some sensationalist reporting misunderstood it intentionally to have a headline, and to create a strawman to argue against. The break down of the Atlantic Ocean current is a long process and will take several decades of small, but continuous changes. Claiming scientists said it would happen in a single year is outright out of the playbook of anti-science pundits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So the scientists (Score:5, Informative)
the problem hasn't been that lay people are too skeptical, it's that climate change popularizers have been too alarmist.
Congratulations, you just failed typically hard.
Climate change popularizers have been understating the case to try to placate schmucks like you. Now that it's obvious that things are worse than they've been saying, you and yours are claiming "look they were wrong!" The only thing they did wrong was to downplay the dangers of AGW in order not to scare idiots so much that they retract their heads into their turtle shells. But they never could have reached you assholes, so they should not have wasted their time on you, and should have presented the middle of the range estimates instead of the lowest ones.
Re: (Score:2)
You will get a "serious response" when you make a "serious objection". Until then you get treated like the class potato that you are.
Re: So the scientists (Score:5, Informative)
You have been complaining that they overstated the case when the fact is they understated it, you are the one working from emotion. I am using facts and I can see that is confusing to you.
Re: (Score:2)
you'd be laughed out of the room.
Laughing is an emotional knee-jerk response.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That is unfortunately completely spot on.
Re:So the scientists (Score:4, Insightful)
amid political backlash against alleged alarmism, scientists in their presentations to the public, have often used estimations at the lower end of probable changes
Much the opposite. Alarmists always pick the highest OMG-we're-all-gonna-die predictions. After literally decades of failed predictions - there is still arctic ice, for example [theguardian.com] - they have nuked their own credibility and driven a lot of people into the skeptics' camp. Few people pay much attention to end-of-the-world predictions any more.
Maybe if the alarmist started actually doing science, instead of using scare tactics? You know, making testable predictions, and revising their theories when those don't work out. The above-mentioned failed prediction? Arctic not ice-free? Ok, then it will be "next year, or the year after" [theguardian.com]. That's not science. Actually retracting his failed prediction and revisiting his models? Nah...that doesn't get clicks...
Re: (Score:2)
Until I start to see elected officials actually LEAD BY EXAMPLE, I'm not giving up my quality of life so they can continue to live better then me while ignoring their own guidance.
When the top 1% start living like "normal" people in a typical house/condo/apartment and not jetting off to every part of the world, I'm not buying into their hypocrisy.
I will continue to strive for a sustainable lifestyle but that's more because it gives me more control over my own life and leaves me less reliant on rent-seeking
Re: (Score:1)
If they uphold "family values", can I be skeptical of family values?
Re: (Score:2)
there is still arctic ice, for example [theguardian.com] - they have nuked their own credibility and driven a lot of people into the skeptics' camp. Few people pay much attention to end-of-the-world predictions any more.
This article doesn't say what you think it says. And the prediction made in this article happened and is continuing.
TL; Didn't Slashdot Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me save you some time.
1. We're not dead yet. Scientists are just alarmist.
2. Scientists are constantly wrong, they are just making up models.
3. Of course they'd say that. Their money depends on it.
4. Isn't it convenient that they stopped 1985 with their measurements. What are they hiding!
5. YOU WOULDN'T have THIS problem IF YOU used my HOSTS FILE - apk
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa apk lol
Re: (Score:1)
6. What's not to like about dead humanity?
Re: (Score:2)
"1. We're not dead yet. Scientists are just alarmist."
Some are and its done climate science zero favours. But most are hard working and take their time to study the data.
"2. Scientists are constantly wrong, they are just making up models."
Was einstein constantly wrong? And models are the best we've got since good luck trying to work out the climate with pencil and paper.
"3. Of course they'd say that. Their money depends on it."
They'd get paid the same whether the earth was warming, cooling or staying the sa
Re: (Score:1)
In Wegener's day, would you have said "geologists get paid the same whether continents drift or not so that argument is for the birds"? Or did geologists get paid for making emotional and personal attacks?
And didn't Einstein fail at finding a grand unified theory, so does the standard model have problems? A hundred years from now, will we look back on today's science as we look back on geology before Wegener?
Re: (Score:2)
In Wegener's day, would you have said "geologists get paid the same whether continents drift or not so that argument is for the birds"? Or did geologists get paid for making emotional and personal attacks?
Not quite sure of your point here, but keep in mind that Wegener was more wrong than right. He said that the continents were moving at 2.5 meters per year, a number that was so high that it could be shown to be wrong. He was 99% wrong.
Turns out that he's remembered for the 1% right part, not the 99% wrong part.
(Arthur Holmes should get more credit. He had a much more physically reasonable theory of continental drift.)
Re: (Score:1)
If you are a kid as late as the 1960s looking at a globe thinking "South America and Africa look like they fit together", and a Very Serious Geologist harrumphs at you and says "Continents don't move. How could they?", are you more wrong than the Eminently Credentialed Geologist?
Re: (Score:2)
"And didn't Einstein fail at finding a grand unified theory"
So what? His theory of general relativity is probably one of the most tested and verified theories in physics.
Re: (Score:1)
Why are those equations useless at quantum scale?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate popularizers have a genuine problem with losing the respect (and the attention) of lay people. There's a reason for this.
Re:TL; Didn't Slashdot Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
In the short run, and that's because it is easy to be a climate change denier; no advanced science degree necessary. Anyone can be one.
However, increasingly rapid climate change is happening, you'd have to be blind not to see it. If it tips into a catastrophe, the right-wing whiners will claim it is not happening, or that Jesus will be a'coming round the corner any day, or it was all a left-woke plot to take their money. Recognizing a catastrophe after the fact is a bit late.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot treat you as an honest broker if you will be using rhetoric such as "denier". It's a sign that you don't intend to take people seriously. This is supposed to be a technical site.
Re: (Score:3)
You are being quite rhetorical however.
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot treat you as an honest broker if you will be using rhetoric such as "denier".
What term would you suggest we use to describe someone who denies something?
Re: (Score:1)
Do climate scientists deny that warmer temperatures plus free migration just means huge swathes of lush land opening up, not inevitable catastrophe?
Re: (Score:2)
Do climate scientists deny that warmer temperatures plus free migration just means huge swathes of lush land opening up, not inevitable catastrophe?
No, because that's not all it means. It may be a small part of what it means, though the new land opening up may not be particularly usable for decades to centuries, and the "free migration" part is serious wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you sound like a geologist criticizing Wegener, not an impartial scientist in search of truth?
Re: (Score:2)
...or it was all a left-woke plot to take their pickup trucks...
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
The average lay person is pretty stupid.
And half of them are even below average.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate popularizers have a genuine problem with losing the respect (and the attention) of lay people. There's a reason for this.
Yes, there is a reason. The reason is that climate change is a slow catastrophe, and humans are not good dealing with slow problems. We deal with fast, immediate problems. But a problem that's taking decades to manifest, and will take decades to solve, just doesn't get the urgency factor to make people stay interested.
The climate warming we see today is the cumulative result of carbon dioxide that humans emitted decades ago. If we stopped burning fossil carbon today, we wouldn't see any change in the warmi
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct, it is a slow process, but what has not yet been established with hard data is that it is a "catastrophe". All of the current claims of catastrophe come from models, not observations.
So, one of the things that are encouraging about the linked GP is that people are doing direct observations and making estimates based on facts. That's all to the good.
Predictions [Re:TL; Didn't Slashdot Comments] (Score:3)
That's correct, it is a slow process, but what has not yet been established with hard data is that it is a "catastrophe".
Yes, this is the next step in the denial chain:
"Global warming isn't real."
"OK, global warming is real, but we're not causing it."
"OK, we're causing it, but maybe it's not really as bad as we thought." -- WE ARE HERE
Something to think about. The denier community is basically saying "there are error bars on the estimates, so it might be not as bad as the modeled average predictions. OK. But that also means it might be worse than the modeled average predictions. Which gamble do you want to take?
All of the current claims of catastrophe come from models, not observations.
That's the
Re: (Score:2)
but what has not yet been established with hard data is that it is a "catastrophe".
Right? It isn't like extreme climate related disasters have been increasing over the last 50 years, like the data shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot, "I got mine, fuck everyone else."
You must be new here.... (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our new Robotic Overlords.
In Soviet Russia, Greenland ice sheets melt YOU!
(am I fishing for karma? possibly, but I don't know how to spend it)
So what's new? (Score:2)
We've heard the exact same story so many times already that it longer qualifies to be "news" because, you know, it's no longer new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Not really frailty. Just blissful ignorance.
Automate this post (Score:3)
Because My memory recalls that this "it's warming, melting" faster than anticipated every single year. How do they NOT anticipate it's going to be the same next year?
It's no surprise anymore, and when the "oof" effect wears off people are going about their lives as normal.
For the longest time, Denmark amongst other countries that are kind of flat and close to the sea level, has seen parts of their country being eaten up by the sea, more properties and houses are vanishing under the sea and beach erosion.
Future scenarios:
1) The climate will be unbearable in the countries that used to be our vacation spots in the 80s, we see this every year. They're having forest fires, places dry up, becoming deserts.
2) people from these countries will exit to other countries, increasing the flow of immigrants.
3) Jobs will become more scarce because of this.
4) More conficts.
5) No one cares about the global warming, we will have the usual "Global warming is a hoax" vs "scientists", and the election is rigged, while the industry will profit on the panic amongs the population, and find ways to profit on this.
6) So will the politicians, we pretty much know it's the same whoever we vote for, it's who has the most money that wins the agenda anyway.
Yeah, everything as usual.
Re:Automate this post (Score:5, Informative)
> Because My memory recalls that this "it's warming, melting" faster than anticipated every single year. How do they NOT anticipate it's going to be the same next year?
That's not what this is about. This is about the past 20 years having had more melt than they estimated.
Not a "it's getting worse" , this is a "It has been worse, we just didn't know"
Re: (Score:2)
Rich folk problems. Oh, your beach house mansion is falling off a cliff that's being eroded away? Well, nothing last forever and it seems like you had a pretty good run.
The average person is already living in much worse conditions and whether sea level rises or not won't change that. Hard to care about "global problems" when we're busy trying to survive on the other end.
It will just keep getting worse regardless if I start walking to work or not. May as well enjoy my meat and enjoy my car while I can becaus
Re: (Score:2)
PS I'm also sure we'll keep providing all the energy needs for AI, cloud computing and so on and continue to automate away more and more work for people as well. So literally, who gives a shit if the world is going to hell! It's already pretty bad for most of humanity anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be a "rich folk problem" when climate change makes a bunch of farmland unusable and food becomes scarce. Or when some region currently inhabited by hundreds of millions of people becomes uninhabitable and they all want to move to where you live.
Re: (Score:2)
Shrugs. I'm already doing all I reasonably can so at this point it's not something I'm going to let bother me. What will happen will happen regardless of how I feel about it. I'm not going to worry about something that's beyond my control.
Wait, they didn't use MODELS? (Score:2)
They made observations? They collected actual data and produced an estimate that could be cross-checked? They didn't just tweak input parameters in a climate model and report that the sky was falling -- only more quickly this time -- they just published straight-up measurements of real-world conditions?
All sarcasm aside, this is fantastic news. It's not too late to rescue the scientific method.
What do we do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time another global warming story comes up on Slashdot there's the usual debate on if global warming is happening or not, and if so then how bad is it. Rather than that again I suggest just assume it is happening, that it is pretty bad, and so we should do something about the cause. It seems that there's little dispute that the cause is CO2 emissions. Where are the CO2 emissions coming from? Burning fossil fuels. How do we best stop burning fossil fuels? Using energy sources that are low in cost, and low in CO2 emissions. What energy sources fit that description? Onshore wind, hydroelectric dams, geothermal, and nuclear fission. What doesn't fit that description? Offshore wind and any form of solar power.
Because onshore wind, hydro, and geothermal all require certain geography and climate to be inexpensive and effective there will need to be a lot of nuclear fission to supply the energy we need. This has been laid out in studies done by the UK, IPCC, and other government and private organizations.
Even if global warming isn't near the threat it is claimed to be we'd still benefit from the lowered air pollution and lowered costs by using the alternatives suggested by these studies. But because people fear nuclear power more than global warming we aren't solving the problem. Maybe they are correct to fear nuclear power more than global warming, because global warming is a myth and nuclear power is real. I would think that with all the fear about global warming that it's not a myth, so the question is which to fear more. Do we fear nuclear power more than global warming? Or global warming more than nuclear power? Given that nuclear power is the safest energy source we've ever created it looks to me like we are asking the wrong question. What do we fear more, fossil fuels or nuclear power? We should fear fossil fuels more than nuclear power. Replace fossil fuels with nuclear power and that also removes the threat of global warming. Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go along with this approach. Classic least-risk tradeoff.
Re: (Score:2)
They like hyping up those numbers, but what they don't tell you is that the total ice loss in Greenland since 2000 is barely 1% of the total mass.
The total ice loss each year is a nearly undetectable (0.005 percent) of the Greenland ice mass.
Hundreds of square kilometers, gigatons, etc... are all used to scare people and push their narrative.
The truth is they can barely detect the ice loss year over year.
ZERO point ZERO ZERO FIVE percent.
this is depressing (Score:1)
Economic growth (Score:1)
Something I've never understood when talking to climate change skeptics. Is the insistence on the status quo, when really this should be seen as an opportunity for innovation and economic growth. More wind and solar means more jobs. More batteries mean more factories. Upgrading the grid to support those means more money for somebody. If the public utilities were smart they'd be pushing for home solar and batteries. They get to charge the same or more money for less work.
From the "go capitalism" point of vie
Re: (Score:1)
So why do we need mandates like "no gas cars after 2030", etc.? Why not just let markets work and stop trying to nudge people using prohibitions in public policies?