|
|
|
 |
||
|
||
Not sure what to make of theSubmitted by Paul S (not verified) on Wed, 2008-01-16 00:02.
Not sure what to make of the new study. Other current data shows the Antarctic to be over 1,000,000 square kms above average for ice extant. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg Secondly, there is also a new article published stating that the melting in Greenland is less now then it was in the 1920's and 1930's. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008742.shtml » reply
The new study is talkingSubmitted by FEMACK on Wed, 2008-01-16 07:31.
The new study is talking about a long-term trend, noting in particular that the rate of total ice mass loss over the last decade has accelerated to 75% faster than 1996. The current statistic you cite for above-average ice extent is seasonal variation of sea ice referring to ice formed this winter, I believe (is it not?), not long-term ice sheet mass data. As for the new study at www.agu.org, it refers to surface melting. As I understand it, the greatest loss of ice mass in the Greenland sheet occurs at the leading edge, where the ice is being dumped into the sea at a much higher rate than in the past. Surface melt contributes to the rate of flow of the glaciers, but is not the principle mechanism for loss of mass. (I'm no expert -- if someone can confirm this I'd be grateful) Fern Mackenzie » reply
You are right, watching too.Submitted by hans v (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-29 10:59.
You are right, watching too. My guess is were watching 'weather' here. Weather driven by 'La Nina' presenting us a steadily growing worldwide effect. » reply
Feedbacks?Submitted by Tom on Mon, 2008-01-14 20:58.
How about the "pingo-like features" on the Beaufort Sea shelf? The ones giving off bubbles of methane gas? » reply
"Target Practice"Submitted by tidal (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-15 09:58.
This paper from www.carbonequity.info : My guess as to the reason for its sparse coverage? They conclude that the target CO2eq ppm that is significantly below today's level of ~ 382 ppm. AND, they published this slightly before both Bill McKibben and James Hansen recently made similar calls and created a minor cyclone in the blogosphere: see here for example: This, of course, is far from the first time that we have been apprised of this. And even Hansen and McKibben clearly understand that we are certain to overshoot today's numbers even if we do eventually get on our way to a lower number... However, I still think large parts of the public - and political leaders - seem to struggle with the difference between "stock" and "flow" issues w.r.t. atmospheric concentrations... For instance, I think that the whole framing of (pick a number) "80% reductions in CO2 emissions by 2050" lulls people into a sense that "yeah, that's a big cut, but 'they' (i.e. the future) will figure it out"... The problem with that is the PATH that we take to reductions is equally (or more) important to the final levels... e.g. if we were to keep emissions where they are today for the next 35 years and then abruptly cut by 80%, it would be "too little, too late" because the issue is a "stock" issue not a "flow" issue... I know that it patently obvious to anyone educated in the field, but sadly I think the reality is that this simple confusion continues to be a a major stumbling block to getting urgent action... By the way, the further implication of a CO2eq ppm target of lower than today's number is that, in effect, it requires "negative" CO2 emissions - another reason the concept is so daunting and almost anathema to present day economies... Inconveniently, "the climate" doesn't give a rat's a** if it is "daunting" or "anathema"... do... » reply
Post new comment |
 Subscribe To Our NewsletterLike what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week (here's a preview). Enter your email address below and click Subscribe!   Other Posts by This Writer
 The good news is that solutions to global warming exist, check out Ross Gelbspan’s Green Sheet and his vision for a pathway to climate peace. Or, check out the latest below: Similar entries
most popular itemsUser login | ||
Even less time than we thought
There is a new study out on the rate of ice loss in the Antarctic, relying on far more precise and comprehensive data than has been previously available. Not only is the ice mass shrinking, the rate of ice loss has increased by a whopping 75% over 10 years (from 1996-2006). Lead author Eric Rignot is quoted in the Globe & Mail: "I see [global warming] as the main driver for the change in ice mass. And this means that we are not in a natural cycle, but in something that is related to global warming or global climate change, whichever you want to call it." The G&M story is at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080113. [space inserted]wicesheet13/BNStory/National/home
The original paper is being published in a new journal in the Nature group, Nature Geoscience, here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html. But of course the paper itself is firewalled.
This study is particularly important because the 4th IPCC scenarios reckoned in the Greenland ice loss, but when they went to press there was no clear picture of what was happening at the other pole. Apparently the impact on sea level rise of what Rignot et al have found will be as significant as what's happening in Greenland.
Fern Mackenzie