Glaciers Melting Faster Than First Thought

Researchers Believe Ice Melting Across Wider Area, Threatens To Raise Sea Levels

(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.

[cwfish]

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

[louiville2]

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."

[reimer211]

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.

[brookie53]

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.

[MacOO7]

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.

[louiville2]

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.

[louiville2]

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.........................................

[hhl15]

"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 :-)

[hhl15]

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.

[hhl15]

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?

[louiville2]

I have not made a single attack ag
Posted by troutfisher9 at 2:08 PM

LOL I searched over the internet and that text you posted only comes up on Wikipropaganda. No others have tied steve to BIG OIL WIDE BRUSH ad hominem attacks you 'flagellants' constantly throw out when met with FACTS.

[louiville2]

Posted by troutfisher9 at 1:20 PM

So you won't go right? Ad Hominem attacks, and where did you get your data on them? Not form Wikipropaganda I hope. (Can't attack the message attack the messinger.) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

[hhl15]

troutfisher9 wrote: "There are numerous websites by legitimate scientific organizations you can reference. NASA and NOAA are good starting points."

The site I referenced has numerous links to NASA & NOAA sites. I like the fact that info was easily available with links and references to support the info or to see for yourself.

I would suggest that the facts are indeed factual. After reading about the person who made the site he is a very legitimate person in the world of climate change. I quote from the website climatechangefacts.info "Dr. Everett led work for the IPCC on five impact analyses from 1988-2000: Fisheries (Convening Lead Author), Polar Regions (Co-Chair), Oceans (Lead Author), and Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co-Chair/2 reports). He also was a Contributing Expert in developing the IPCC Impact Assessment Methodology protocol. See IPCC Nobel Prize recognition." also "In 1996 he received the NOAA Administrator?s Award for ?accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries.?

In the end it is who to believe and how they interpret the information that is the ultimate question. I was just mentioning a site where people could find and judge information for themselves.

[louiville2]

Posted by troutfisher9 at 1:30 PM
National Snow and Ice Data Center, 18th February 2009: ?Satellite sensor errors cause data outage?

As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data. See below for more details.

We have removed the most recent data and are investigating alternative data sources that will provide correct results. It is not clear when we will have data back online, but we are working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

The final paragraph is interesting:

Some people might ask why we don?t simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus, while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on current sea ice conditions, it actually provides less accuracy on the long-term changes over the past thirty years. There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time periods. Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice. With that in mind, we have chosen to continue using the SSM/I sensor, which provides the longest record of Arctic sea ice extent.

By an area the size of california LOL you get your data from the worst sites

[frankie2fing]

The Antarctic ice is precisely at the average and the Arctic has nearly fully recovered. So where is the truth? Does anyone know the truth?

They are not 'real time' photos. All glaciers have receded since 1940's

[hhl15]

After reading this story I had a few questions so I did a little bit of searching and found this site www.climatechangefacts.info/Today-Antarctic-Ice-Area-and-Trends.html that shows what the satellite sees TODAY. The Antarctic ice is precisely at the average and the Arctic has nearly fully recovered. So where is the truth? Does anyone know the truth? The warming, and cooling, is probably a big cycle anyway since the earth is always changing. The climatechangefacts.info site was interesting with links to real time info.

[frankie2fing]

Oceans have been rising an average of 4 ft per century over the past 10,000 years. Now they are rising about 1 ft per century.

Oceans rose 2 mm per year during the first half of the 20th century, and only 1.5 mm per year during the second half. Humans are not the cause.
Posted by louiville2

I keep saying your are the dumbest a$$ on the net. OF COURSE THE OCEANS WERE RISING over the past 10,000 years and OF COURSE THEY HAVE SLOWED in recent history. This is because, A$$, we should be COOLING, on our way to the next cyclic ICE AGE (approximately every 40,000 years!) Spin all you want, man is making his contribution. OF COURSE, JUST YOUR MOUTH RUNNING IS RAISING THE TEMP EASILY 2 DEGREES!

[louiville2]

Posted by troutfisher9 at 8:38 AM

Just run right over to climateaudit.org and make that claim

"Turns out this NASA data was revised because of a Y2K bug in the algorithm used to adjust measurement station raw data. Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data. NASA's James Hansen has refused to release his algorithms but they were reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and NASA has since updated their data (so you know he Steve got it right). What this author finds truly disturbing (and disgusting) is that NASA would keep these algorithms secret. This is public information. Steve really should file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to obtain this and what ever else he needs. NASA would be very hard pressed to justify withholding that information. These events seriously call in to question anything James Hansen has touched, supervised, or managed. Not just because he got the math wrong but because he also hides his methods. He is apparently attempting to establish a new religion by requiring people to have faith in his data. "

[louiville2]

In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.050C, so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.
Posted by troutfisher9 at 8:38 AM

From James Hanson LOL yeah SUUUURE just like 1998 was the warmest opps we meant 1934 James Hanson funding wh*ore group.

Oceans have been rising an average of 4 ft per century over the past 10,000 years. Now they are rising about 1 ft per century.

Oceans rose 2 mm per year during the first half of the 20th century, and only 1.5 mm per year during the second half. Humans are not the cause.

[louiville2]

Co-author Professor David Vaughan (BAS) says,"This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration. However, it cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm per year to sea-level rise. This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."
Posted by troutfisher9 at 9:05 AM

HAHAHHAHAHH

Mutiple choice question for you.

A) caused by global warming
B) caused by shifting ocean currents
C) caused by shifting weather patterns
D) caused by instrument error detecting volcanic heat
E) All of the above
F) none of the above
G) We do not have enough information and anything we can say to get more funding will work like "This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."

I smell dead fish, don't let your brain overload.