April 29, 2009 3:18 PM

Glaciers Melting Faster Than First Thought

(AP)  Glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster and across a much wider area than previously thought, a development that threatens to raise sea levels worldwide and force millions of people to flee low-lying areas, scientists said Wednesday.

Researchers once believed that the melting was limited to the Antarctic Peninsula, a narrow tongue of land pointing toward South America. But satellite data and automated weather stations now indicate it is more widespread.

The melting "also extends all the way down to what is called west Antarctica," said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.

"That's unusual and unexpected," he told The Associated Press in an interview.

By the end of the century, the accelerated melting could cause sea levels to climb by 3 to 5 feet - levels substantially higher than predicted by a major scientific group just two years ago.

Making matters worse, scientists said, the ice shelves that hold the glaciers back from the sea are also weakening.

The report Wednesday from Geneva was a broad summary of two years of research by scientists from 60 countries. Some of the findings were released in earlier reports.

In Washington, as part of an overall update on global warming, top researchers on Wednesday sounded a similar warning to the U.S. Senate about rising temperatures in the Antarctic.

The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group set up by the United Nations, told lawmakers on the Environment and Public Works Committee that Earth has about six more years at current rates of carbon dioxide pollution before it is locked into a future of severe global warming.

For years, the continent at the bottom of the world seemed to be the only place on the planet not experiencing climate change. Previous research indicated that temperatures across much of Antarctica were staying the same or slightly cooling.

The report Wednesday was compiled as part of the 2007-2008 International Polar Year, an effort by scientists to conduct intense Arctic and Antarctic research over the past two Antarctic summers.

The big surprise was exactly how much glaciers are melting in western Antarctica, a vast land mass on the Pacific Ocean side of the continent that is next to the South Pole and includes the Antarctic Peninsula.

The biggest of the western glaciers, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 percent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, said Summerhayes, a member of International Polar Year's steering committee.

The Smith Glacier, also in west Antarctica, is moving 83 percent faster than in 1992, he said.

The glaciers are slipping into the sea faster because the floating ice shelf that would normally stop them - usually 650 to 980 feet thick - is melting. And the glaciers' discharge is making a significant contribution to increasing sea levels.

Some people "fear that this is the first signs of an incipient collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet," Summerhayes said. "If the west Antarctica sheet collapses, then we're looking at a sea level rise of between 3 feet, 4 inches, to nearly 5 feet."

Together, all the glaciers in west Antarctica are losing a total of around 114 billion tons per year because the melting is much greater than the new snowfall, he said.

"That's equivalent to the current mass loss from the whole of the Greenland ice sheet," Summerhayes said.

Looked at another way, it's more weight than 312,000 Empire State Buildings.

"We didn't realize it was moving that fast," he said.

Summerhayes said sea levels will climb higher than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

A 2007 report by the IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions of people to relocate.

The group said an additional 3.9- to 7.8-inch increase in sea levels was possible if the recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

New research published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that melting glaciers will add at least 7 inches to the world's sea level - and that's if carbon dioxide pollution is quickly capped and then reduced.

Far more likely is an increase of at least 15 inches and probably more just from melting glaciers, the journal said.

Until recently, scientists debated whether Antarctica was warming.

But a January study in the journal Nature found that Antarctica's average annual temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1957, but is still 50 degrees below zero.

The report also determined that autumn temperatures in east Antarctica were cooling over the long term.

International Polar Year researchers found that the southern ocean around Antarctica has warmed about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit in the past decade, double the average warming of the rest of the Earth's oceans over the past 30 years.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 64 Comments
by cwfish June 2, 2009 3:39 AM EDT
Here's some interesting reading from the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as the world's leaders in environmental science share thier views.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12
Reply to this comment
by louiville2 March 2, 2009 11:23 PM EST
Yawn this is old news that MSM published on the back page because the cause isn't manmade:

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2008) ? The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's most rapidly changing ice sheet has been reported. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active.
The subglacial volcano has a 'volcanic explosion index' of around 3-4. Heat from the volcano creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea. Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing rapid change and BAS scientists are part of an international research effort to understand this change."
Reply to this comment
by reimer211 March 1, 2009 6:25 PM EST
Whenever I hear someone trashing anthropogenic climate change theories I want to hurl. That's why I just simply don't talk with anyone anymore who "doesn't believe in global warming", or states that "it's a big conspiracy". Because you know what? Every person, face-to-face or on line that I've spoken with who doesn't believe in human-caused global warming doesn't want to look at the science. Or they have looked at it and either "don't believe" the equations or they "don't believe" the original data sets themselves. Or they listen to the lunatic fringe few who completely skew all of the data in their own interests, whatever they may be. Guess what, people? It's science. The same old empirical tried-and-true process that brought you the Space Age, the internet and computer that you spew your lameness on, the cold beer you enjoy while you watch Jerry Springer on the scientifically-engineered flat screen that barely fits in your trailer. ha. If you?re really interested I?ll send you the study that takes into account the possibility we are entering a Maunder style Minimum and still shows at it?s deepest, the minimum might give us a possible 7 years? respite from temperature increases and even that theory might be overdone as we are now learning about the upcoming explosion of additional co2 from thawing tundras and drying equatorial forests. Do me and us all and the gene pool a favor will you, global warming disbelievers? Please, please go find a low-lying area near the coast and purchase a home.
Reply to this comment
by brookie53 February 27, 2009 2:28 PM EST
I agree with MAC007. Is it the temp on the surface or is something bubbling up from underneath? There must be molten rock around there from the past. Can it come again? I am sure as mother nature does what it wants to do without man's sayso. Earth quake anyone? Does man cause earth quakes? I don't think so.
Reply to this comment
by MacOO7 February 27, 2009 12:10 PM EST
I find it sad all the fear and gloom being put forth over this. People treat scientists like they're gods and they have perfect understanding when it comes to things like this. I have a fairly good understanding of what's involved in science and I know what we understand is like looking through a glass darkly. For all we know this could be completely normal and anything we try to do about it will be like a man fighting a charging heard of elephants with a single rock. We might even end up making things worse by further damaging an economy that's already bad off. Then when we need the financial resources to adapt to the changes that are coming we'll be out of luck.
Reply to this comment
by louiville2 February 27, 2009 10:18 AM EST
Fine. Lets assume he is a fine outstanding citizen, no financial stake in the outcome.

He is still not a climate scientist, and has no particular expertise in this field.
Posted by troutfisher9 at 2:29 PM

Hmmm since he has repeatedly exposed NASA's James Hanson's distortions/frauds to where he had to withdraw their information on temp readings. Like last October being the warmest in a 100 years within hours NASA was exposed when it was shown they had used Septembers temps in Russia for October-AHAHHAHA Helped expose Manns et.al. "Hockey stick" fraud.

What does that say about your alledged "Experts"? If you can't attack the message attack the messenger.

You probably sucked down the story of WMD?s in Iraq since it came from all those prestigious Government and Independent organizations.
Reply to this comment
by louiville2 February 27, 2009 10:03 AM EST
Posted by troutfisher9 at 6:34 PM


AHAHAHAH I've seen these list before only thing is, is that when you go to them you run into about few senerios like they where just started to make money off the hysteria, They have statements about GW but have vuage or no statement about AGW, They (member) will benifit from bulding Nuclear power plants or wind mills.... (you know the BIG OIL of the AGW bandwagon, or they don't have a single clue about climate but want to sound trendy. Another thing for example "American Physical Society" which the majority of members do NOT belive there is enough evidence for AGW.


International Council of Academies of Engineering Promotes nuclear energy

?While the debate on the effects of burning fossil fuels as a source of energy on the earth's climate is still ongoing, it is clear that this large increase in the demand for energy will have to be supplied with the least impact on the environment.? (About as clear as mud)

European Academy of Sciences and Arts They study depression, migraines etc?.

http://www.europeanacademyofsciencesandarts.com/acae/12_Medical_Sciences/1203_Research/012_Research_Complete_Studies.php


Network of African Science Academies Front group with no AGW statement at all.

etc.........................................
Reply to this comment
by hhl15 February 27, 2009 9:42 AM EST
"What is your weird fixation with this website? Are you somehow associated with it?"

Because I mention a website you have deemed it a weird fixation? Huh.....In each instance I was responding to a comment you made.

I am not associated with the site, although I might be interested in asking a few questions of the author. As I previously posted (several times now), I just left a comment about a site I'd found. You responded by stating that the "facts are not factual" (to which you have shown nothing to support that statement). You then seemed to think that I needed a lesson on scientific debate. Additionally, it looks like you have decided the website is from a "skeptic", although you have not answered my question on that either. I do not find the site skeptical, but is a skeptical website really that bad? I would think that looking at both sides of the debate would be the preferred choice. Personally I have no formed opinion on climate change, and will continue to keep an open mind. It is you who seem to have an agenda against this site as far as I am concerned. Maybe you know the author?

It is very easy to get a listing of various organizations by googling, however your list tells me nothing, nor do you state where you get this information. Besides, this is not a complete list of all of them; you stated "Not a single scientific organization or govt agency", which is a very broad statement. Oh, btw I notice you mention these organizations in association with Global Warming and I never once mentioned Global warming, I wrote climate change which is a bit different as you should know.

I see no need to continue this dialogue, it accomplishes nothing and I have better things to do. I will continue to seek out answers to my questions through every means possible and you can haunt a comment board - Enjoy :-)
Reply to this comment
by hhl15 February 26, 2009 9:18 PM EST
troutfisher9: "Not a single scientific organization or govt agency supports the skeptics view of this subject."

Not a single one??? Please cite references for your statement.

troutfisher9: "Not sure what you hope to accomplish, but simply citing one person is not convincing in the least."

I never said I was looking to accomplish anything, just posted a link to a helpful website. It seems as though you have your thoughts made up no matter what the actual data suggests and woe to anyone who thinks otherwise.

I never said I was only citing one person, in fact I haven't cited anyone other then yourself and a couple of quotes from www.climatechangefacts.info, and that was in response to comments made here. I also don't know what you think I'm trying to convince anyone of???

It was you who started writing to me about skeptics and the facts on the webpage not being factual. You didn't answer my questions about your use of the word skeptic in a previous post, maybe you can answer this one....What is it about the www.climatechangefacts.info site that is not factual? All you wrote was that the "facts were not factual", with no information to back up your claim. Or maybe you can tell me how it is that you can profess to know more then a man who has won a both a nobel prize recognition and also NOAA's NOAA Administrator?s Award for ?accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries.?? It seems as though you are just looking for a fight from everyone you respond to and that, sir, speaks toward your character.

I found this quote on the www.climatechangefacts.info/AboutUs.html page: "Essentially, this is a site for those who think before they leap. For those whose mind is already determined, perhaps you should go elsewhere and not become confused by facts." I can only think that this is why you are opposed to the website.
Reply to this comment
by hhl15 February 26, 2009 6:51 PM EST
Posted by troutfisher9: "In any scientific debate, there will always be some skeptics who have an opinion outside the mainstream view. Same way for evolution, dinosaur extinctions, etc. Sometime they are correct, but not often."

Are you implying that the man who made the www.climatechangefacts.info website is a skeptic? Why do you think I would need a lesson on scientific debate and skepticism? I merely posted a comment earlier with a website that I had found informative because it had all the links to the sites where I could find the info myself. It also was from a person who is respected in the field and has been awarded for his climate change work.

Posted by troutfisher9: "The best course of action is to go directly to the scientific organizations that collect and process the data, rather than relying on a secondary website to cherry pick and post what they feel like."

I also ALWAYS check to see where the info from a site has been collected and by whom, and was impressed with what I had found regarding the person who had built the site, some of which I previously posted. Did you read Dr Everett's resume at http://www.climatechangefacts.info/AboutUs.html? It would seem that he has been right in the thick of things and I see no reason why he would put up nonfactual information on his website. He states that: "Every effort is made to present all the issues, similar to what an inquiring mind would need to understand before rendering an opinion as to whether there are pros and cons to a warming (or cooling) scenario for a particular sector in a particular region, or even for the global society."

I recently found this mentioned on another website after a quick search: "As an outgrowth of his recent Congressional testimony on the impacts of climate change on fisheries and oceans he implemented an unbiased website: ClimateChangeFacts.info." How do you propose that this person isn't qualified to have a website on global climate change?
Reply to this comment
See all 64 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook