NASA: 2T Tons Of Land Ice Melted Since '03

Greenland, Antarctica, Alaska Hit Hardest; Latest Sign Of Climate Change, Say Scientists

(CBS/AP)  More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.

More than half of the loss of landlocked ice in the past five years has occurred in Greenland, based on measurements of ice weight by NASA's GRACE satellite, said NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke.

That matters, says CBS News correspondent Vicki Barker, because ice which melts on land contributes to rising sea levels.

The water melting from Greenland in the past five years would fill up about 11 Chesapeake Bays, Luthcke said, and the Greenland melt seems to be accelerating.

NASA scientists planned to present their findings Thursday at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. Luthcke said Greenland figures for the summer of 2008 aren't complete yet, but this year's ice loss, while still significant, won't be as severe as 2007.

The news was better for Alaska. After a precipitous drop in 2005, land ice increased slightly in 2008 because of large winter snowfalls, Luthcke said. Since 2003, when the NASA satellite started taking measurements, Alaska has lost 400 billion tons of land ice.

In assessing climate change, scientists generally look at several years to determine the overall trend.

Melting of land ice, unlike sea ice, increases sea levels very slightly. In the 1990s, Greenland didn't add to world sea level rise; now that island is adding about half a millimeter of sea level rise a year, NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said in a telephone interview from the conference.

Between Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska, melting land ice has raised global sea levels about one-fifth of an inch in the past five years, Luthcke said. Sea levels also rise from water expanding as it warms.

(NASA)

This pair of images shows the retreat of the Sermersuaq (or Humboldt) Glacier in Greenland, photographed by NASA’s Terra satellite on Aug. 31, 2000 (left) and Aug. 30, 2008 (right). Significant retreat is visible in the northern part of the glacier, where a fast-flowing ice stream is located. In both images, Kane Bassin is littered with ice (which may include icebergs and sea ice).

Other research, being presented this week at the geophysical meeting point to more melting concerns from global warming, especially with sea ice.

Barker says new research suggests that sea ice at the North Pole is melting faster and sooner than previous projections, and may already have passed a tipping point of ice-free summers.

"It's not getting better; it's continuing to show strong signs of warming and amplification," Zwally said. "There's no reversal taking place."

Scientists studying sea ice will announce that parts of the Arctic north of Alaska were 9 to 10 degrees warmer this past fall, a strong early indication of what researchers call the Arctic amplification effect. That's when the Arctic warms faster than predicted, and warming there is accelerating faster than elsewhere on the globe.

As sea ice melts, the Arctic waters absorb more heat in the summer, having lost the reflective powers of vast packs of white ice. That absorbed heat is released into the air in the fall. That has led to autumn temperatures in the last several years that are six to 10 degrees warmer than they were in the 1980s, said research scientist Julienne Stroeve at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

That's a strong and early impact of global warming, she said.

"The pace of change is starting to outstrip our ability to keep up with it, in terms of our understanding of it," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and a co-author of the Arctic amplification study.

Two other studies coming out at the conference assess how Arctic thawing is releasing methane - the second most potent greenhouse gas. One study shows that the loss of sea ice warms the water, which warms the permafrost on nearby land in Alaska, thus producing methane, Stroeve says.

A second study suggests even larger amounts of frozen methane are trapped in lakebeds and sea bottoms around Siberia and they are starting to bubble to the surface in some spots in alarming amounts, said Igor Semiletov, a professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. In late summer, Semiletov found methane bubbling up from parts of the East Siberian Sea and Laptev Sea at levels that were 10 times higher than they were in the mid-1990s, he said based on a study this summer.

The amounts of methane in the region could dramatically increase global warming if they get released, he said.

That, Semiletov said, "should alarm people."

[co2max]

Regardless of what position anyone here takes regarding Climate Change, we can know this for sure:

1) Science will become sacrificed to political agenda
2) Taxation on carbon usage, which is a "crime" committed by every living being, may well become reality. Call this a Life Tax.
3) The Global Warming noise is going to become so loud, out of fear of losing the audience, that it will be difficult for well-intentioned, intelligent people who do not follow the science, to know what is going on.
4) Non-science leaders will be given more credence by the public not because they know the science of climate but because they have friends in high places who can make them look smart.
5) Life in the United States will become more expensive, regulated and laden with guilt.
6) True science will not longer matter. Truth, in general, will matter only to the extent that popular perception about any topic will allow it to.
7) Welcome to the Socialist States of America.

[octavianfdlr]

Barker says new research suggests that sea ice at the North Pole is melting faster and sooner than previous projections, and may already have passed a tipping point of ice-free summers.

"It''s not getting better; it''s continuing to show strong signs of warming and amplification," Zwally said. "There''s no reversal taking place."

-The article
_________

So the extent of Arctic melt-out this year was less than last. (That is, more ice re-froze last winter than melted last summer.) And Zwally says "There''s no reversal taking place."

Why is Zwally in denial?

[troutfisher4]

One Last Post - Enjoy


President-elect Barack Obama has selected two of the nation''s most prominent scientific advocates for a vigorous response to climate change to serve in his administration''s top ranks, according to sources, sending the strongest signal yet that he will reverse Bush administration policies on energy and global warming.

The appointments of Harvard University physicist John Holdren as presidential science adviser and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which will be announced tomorrow, dismayed conservatives but heartened environmentalists and researchers.

[troutfisher4]

Fellows, this is my last post here. So let me just say in closing:

Come January, we will have a clean sweep of the anti-science, GW denial crowd. There WILL be action on GW in our country, and I suspect also global action in the coming few years. Now you can be in denial or not, but "change it is a coming".

Best of luck to both of you, and I am sorry you are on the wrong side of this issue.

[co2max]

TF4-
In closing, since this thread probably closes by sunrise...I grew up in the Bible Belt and learned at a very, very early age to despite Creationism and to hold a very large distrust of organized Christianity. To my thinking, Evolution is the Law of Life, as much as anything in science possibly can be. Collective belief systems are all about the money.

So, you should see, that my anti AGW position doesn''t fit the mold. I am a free-thinker and my understanding about planetary science (which is the underlying science to climatology, since the principles apply to all terrestrial system where an atmosphere is present) draws from decades of schooling, study, work experience and professional interaction with like-minded individuals and colleagues.

Oh, and forget about the politics. I have decided that whoever decided politicians should run the country must have been nuts. But then, look at the alternatives....

[louiville2]

We will gain nothing by sacrificing ourselves out of an ill-conceived, noble-sounding crusade to eliminate the human "footprint."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CO2Max

Yeah CO2Max I''m an engineer and have spent most of the last twenty five years working in environmental engineering. I already know I''ll leave this place better then I found it.

moldy is a typical narcissist claims one thing does another, just looking for "Narcissistic supply", the last red herring is the proof we won!

But you have a good Christmas and/or Holiday and it''s good to know not everyone is so shallow ;)

[troutfisher4]

Why did I ask about evolution? Because AGW denial is usually part of a triad:

1) Denial of AGW

2) Denial of evolution

3) Belief in an invisible friend (ie a christian)


That is the short list. It also typically includes being a Republican, thinking GW Bush is a great president, that environmental activists are destroying america, there were WMDs, etc etc.

[troutfisher4]

We dun well.

Posted by CO2Max

About as well as a one legged man in an ***-kicking contest. Consider your asss thoroughly kicked.

But hey, I understand your denial syndrome. Since you are in denial about AGW, no doubt you are in denial about other things in your life. Good luck with that ...

[co2max]

louiville2 -
I do believe our opponent has gone into spasms in this argument. You are certainly correct that this thread has been flogged to death. TF4 proved that he was completely incapable of discussing the immediate issues of this article head-on. We dun well.

We made our case quite clear that we do not dismiss humans as factors in the world situation, but we also stressed that humans are not the primary force in nature, even if the fanatics are hopelessly committed to convincing the lay public that humans are to blame for every ill that befalls nature. It simply isn''t true. We cannot make ourselves invisible to the natural landscape. We should do our best to optimize our existence here and minimize our negative impacts, whatever they may be.

We will gain nothing by sacrificing ourselves out of an ill-conceived, noble-sounding crusade to eliminate the human "footprint."

[co2max]

I have an admission to make:
I come here for the entertainment and really nothing more--that should be clear by now.

So TF4 - what DOES evolution have to do with the discussion of Global Warming?

Before I tell you my position -- if you care -- I''ll wait to see how you react. Remember, this IS entertainment.

[troutfisher4]

louiville2

Do you accept evolution as factual?

[louiville2]

7/17/2008 from APS
"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

Hmmmm you suppose the vote was 51-49?

Posted by louiville2

Hmmm what does that mean to you?

What I''m saying the case has not been made for AGW, why does that scare you? Do you think that anything we say or do here is going to change anything? The fact that I just don''t believe in knee jerk reactions out right fraud of facts as proposed by many in the AGW proponents in the end justifies the means. Remember the "WMD" we need to fix this now and of course the "Consensous" we were told existed for WMD. Look how many lives have been lost with this kind of knee jerk stupidity. BTW I argued against going to Iraq for the same reason now.

As stated above I''m in good company and far from being alone in this. Have a nice life this post has been flogged to death.

[troutfisher4]

louiville2

Do you accept evolution as factual?

[troutfisher4]

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

[louiville2]

Nobel prize winner

Langmuir''s Laws of bad science

1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. (0.00000263% of the atmosphere)

2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results. 0.6 deg C

3. There are claims of great accuracy. (Climate Models)

4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. (magical forcing issues)

5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. (Just listen to yourself and or Al Gore)

6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero. (We are seeing now with cracks in the APS, NOAA, NASA, etc...)

[louiville2]

7/17/2008 from APS
"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

Hmmmm you suppose the vote was 51-49?

[louiville2]

Just admit you are wrong and getting "wronger" with every single post.


Posted by troutfisher4

Since you obviously didn''t read and/or understand the article (scared?)?

[louiville2]

BThe APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Posted by troutfisher4

I liked the last part with the obvious pitch for more funding ;) mine was from 7/2008 I''ll just call you moldy from now on.

[troutfisher4]

louiville2

Just admit you are wrong and getting "wronger" with every single post.

[troutfisher4]

I am so happy you mentioned APS:

(Adopted by APS Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth''s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth%u2019s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth%u2019s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.