talkpolitics | As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas

Entry tags:

As Glaciers Melt, Science Seeks Data on Rising Seas

From a helicopter hovering over Greenland, the oceanographer Fiammetta Straneo took measurements to determine how fast the water is melting the nearby Helheim Glacier.

The New York Times on Sunday, had a great article about scientists studying the quickening pace of glacier melt in Greenland. According to climate experts, sea levels are expected to rise significantly due to melting glacial ice; estimates vary from three to six feet by the end of the century.

Climate scientists readily admit that the three-foot estimate could be wrong. Their understanding of the changes going on in the world’s land ice is still primitive. But, they say, it could just as easily be an underestimate as an overestimate. One of the deans of American coastal studies, Orrin H. Pilkey of Duke University, is advising coastal communities to plan for a rise of at least five feet by 2100. “I think we need immediately to begin thinking about our coastal cities — how are we going to protect them?” said John A. Church, an Australian scientist who is a leading expert on sea level. “We can’t afford to protect everything. We will have to abandon some areas.”

While snowfall for Greenland increased during the 1990s, warmer air temperatures, and warm waters penetrating glacial fjords, have accelerated glacier melt and in a significant manner. But not everyone believes global warming is responsible:

John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is often critical of mainstream climate science, said he suspected that the changes in Greenland were linked to this natural variability, and added that he doubted that the pace would accelerate as much as his colleagues feared. For high predictions of sea-level rise to be correct, “some big chunks of the Greenland ice sheet are going to have to melt, and they’re just not melting that way right now,” Dr. Christy said. Yet other scientists say that the recent changes in Greenland appear more pervasive than those of the early 20th century, and that they are occurring at the same time that air and ocean temperatures are warming, and ice melt is accelerating, throughout much of the world.

To a majority of climate scientists, the question is not whether the earth’s land ice will melt in response to the greenhouse gases those people are generating, but whether it will happen too fast for society to adjust. Recent research suggests that the volume of the ocean may have been stable for thousands of years as human civilization has developed. But it began to rise in the 19th century, around the same time that advanced countries began to burn large amounts of coal and oil.

The sea has risen about eight inches since then, on average. That sounds small, but on a gently sloping shoreline, such an increase is enough to cause substantial erosion unless people intervene. Governments have spent billions in recent decades pumping sand onto disappearing beaches and trying to stave off the loss of coastal wetlands.

Scientists have been struggling for years to figure out if a similar pace of sea-level rise is likely to continue in this century — or whether it will accelerate. In its last big report, in 2007, the United Nations group that assesses climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that sea level would rise at least seven more inches, and might rise as much as two feet, in the 21st century.

But the group warned that these estimates did not fully incorporate “ice dynamics,” the possibility that the world’s big ice sheets, as well as its thousands of smaller glaciers and ice caps, would start spitting ice into the ocean at a much faster rate than it could melt on land. Scientific understanding of this prospect was so poor, the climate panel said, that no meaningful upper limit could be put on the potential rise of sea level.

That report prompted fresh attempts by scientists to calculate the effect of ice dynamics, leading to the recent, revised projections of sea-level rise.

Climate scientists note that while the science of studying ice may be progressing slowly, the world’s emissions of heat-trapping gases are not. They worry that the way things are going, extensive melting of land ice may become inevitable before political leaders find a way to limit the gases, and before scientists even realize such a point of no return has been passed.

“The past clearly shows that sea-level rise is getting faster and faster the warmer it gets,” Dr. Rahmstorf said. “Why should that process stop? If it gets warmer, ice will melt faster.”

Recent analysis of Greenland's glacial melt.

This photo shows the “bathtub ring” above Helheim Glacier. It was created in the middle of the last decade when the glacier sped up and thinned, exposing rock that had once been covered by ice. The light-colored band of rock is about 300 feet thick. The Greenland ice sheet can be seen in the background at the top of the picture.

Summer ponds of melted water on the surface of Helheim Glacier. This kind of melting has accelerated because air temperatures in Greenland are warming.

And before of the denialists come out swinging that ice has been increasing in the Artic or Greenland, please watch this first:

The graph above shows daily Arctic sea ice extent as of November 1, 2010, along with daily ice extents for years with the previous four lowest minimum extents. Light blue indicates 2010, dark blue shows 2009, purple shows 2008, dotted green indicates 2007, and dark gray shows the 1979 to 2000 average. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.

Monthly October ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 6.2% per decade.

It's a fascinating read, extremely well written. I thought I'd pass it along to the community. One worrisome feature is that apparently due to budget constraints, several satellites used by NASA and NOAA for studying glacial ice melt, and water temperatures, etc are being retired with no immediate replacements, due to budget constraints. NASA is using airplane overflies to garner what information it can, but losing satellites at this critical juncture is not good.

I thought this article by Fiammetta Straneo is fascinating as well. It's a study of sea levels during the Roman period and the implications of rising sea levels on modern society. Another resource to check is the The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I know, you've got a long string of very large and obscure words but the fact is, as long as data is hidden, destroyed and left out of computer models, the credibility of your science is totally absent.

You want us to trust the most untrustworthy entities on Gods green earth, those of governments. Regardless of the agency in a government, scientific or not, there is always a hidden agenda that has it's strings pulled by politicians.

I always check user info of those I have contact with on LJ and from your 'interests' I see that activism is one with many left wing (by US standards) causes and from your user pics, I believe you love seals like democrats love cats here.

At least you love an animal that is wild, noble and a cute little critter. Once, about 5 years ago, when I was taking a walk on a frozen Arctic Ocean off Barrow, AK, I actually ran into a pair of them. Curious little guys, and not at all shy. I think they were very young. Nothing to do with anything in your comment.

You want us to trust the most untrustworthy entities on Gods green earth, those of governments.

Why are corporations more trustworthy than governments?

Corporations have to earn their money. The government takes it as they want.

corporations are also voluntary.

Corporations are primarily concerned with bottom line. This is how we got tobacco companies funding scientists who were willing to claim that there was no link between smoking and cancer because the science disagree'd with what was best for their bottom line.

And it maybe how we get government sponsored scientists to say what they say. There is no adult without an agenda.

Some agendas are for using science, which implies an adherence to the truth, to benefit humanity. For all mankind, so to speak.

I know, call me crazy...

No no, they're just for the benefit of the liberal part of humanity (i.e. the evil one).

"You want us to trust the most untrustworthy entities on Gods green earth, those of governments. Regardless of the agency in a government, scientific or not, there is always a hidden agenda that has it's strings pulled by politicians."

Then lets have the Governments stop subsidizing oil and coal. Alternatives will pop up like mad, and the problem will be solved in 30 years.

"Governments stop subsidizing oil and coal. Alternatives will pop up like mad"

I agree! The market will sift out what doesn't work.

I always check user info of those I have contact with on LJ and from your 'interests' I see that activism is one with many left wing (by US standards) causes and from your user pics, I believe you love seals like democrats love cats here.

I do the same thing with several anti-global warming advocacy groups, and quite a few of them have ties to the fossil fuel industry and or previously worked on discrediting research showing smoking tobacco products led to lung cancer.

"anti-global warming advocacy groups"

I do too, with the pro-global warming advocacy groups. They mostly have ties with the government or are government agencies.

That's nice.

Tough to debate, huh?

Is that what you call it?

Not me.

(no subject)

telemann.livejournal.com - 2010-11-18 18:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ofbg.livejournal.com - 2010-11-18 20:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

telemann.livejournal.com - 2010-11-18 20:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ofbg.livejournal.com - 2010-11-18 23:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

telemann.livejournal.com - 2010-11-18 23:25 (UTC) - Expand

heh, you might be a nice enough old man, so I'll be gentle with you. ;-)

First the chitchat: I do like seals (which has to do with several things not related to politics, but "activism" implies that I'm against hunting seals, which I'm not (I want to monitor several things, but that's neither here nor there, the biggest flaw of the seal in man's eye is that it is a competitor for fish)
It's great to encounter seals in the wild, like you did, even adult wild seals can be very curious actually, and you can observe a lot if you're quiet and careful.

Now to the rest of the question:

long string of very large and obscure words
um, okay, what words are those? I'm using some terminology for measuring and comparing historical climate change, I hardly think that's wrong in this discussion. In the age of google it's pretty easy to check in any case.

You want us to trust the most untrustworthy entities on Gods green earth, those of governments.

Actually, you were the one who wanted us to trust a specific climate change skeptic scientist, and there are numerous links on line connecting those few with the automotive/oil industry. Here is a link to the organizations you believe and the voices behind them: Various organizations that are either funded by big corp. or secretive about their funding (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html).
And well, if you want to disregard many non governmental sources as well as international sources by claiming that this is all a conspiracy, and that suddenly the governments of the world agree on one thing, then it doesn't really matter what I write in this discussion, right?

How about individual scientists (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/m/a/matyra/2010/05/a-letter-from-climate-change-s.php) who try to convince governments in that case?

And I kind of marvel at the notion that governments would have something to gain from man made climate change (change to alternative fuels, change the automotive industry, scramble up more money for research, are you kidding me?? these things are behemoths compared to the ease of NOT changing anything and having a blind eye), while the fuel/automotive industry would not have anything to gain from discrediting, ignoring and backpedaling (much like the tobacco industry did). This conclusion that you seem to stand for is...most curious to put it mildly.

Oh, and I can provide you with a gazillion links to material on climate change which is not government related (some of the things I've put in my answers already fits this), but..I sort of suspect you don't want to read that stuff, no matter what source. It's probably easier to think that this is all natural, because climate wasn't "steady" in prehistorical times. (as if anyone claimed it was)

"you might be a nice enough old man"

I am indeed.

"I'm using some terminology for measuring and comparing historical climate change"

Not the vernacular of the common guy. We mostly rely on records of deceit, dishonesty, outright fraud and common sense.

"trust a specific climate change skeptic scientist" "links--connecting those few with the automotive/oil industry" "the voices behind them"

Those on the other side are mostly government employees or supported by government grants, bequeathed by politicians/bureaucrats with an agenda for personal power.

"the governments of the world agree on one thing"

Their agenda is 'global governance" as the only thing that can save the earth.

"then it doesn't really matter what I write in this discussion, right?"

Nothing convincing yet.

From your link after googling Academy of Science from which they quoted as their source, on 'about us' under the 'conflict of interest' category, "Studies Related to Government Regulation: This category includes any committee that will be used by the institution in the development of one or more reports to be provided by the institution to a sponsoring agency for use in the regulatory process."

They are developing reports for a 'sponsoring agency'(government)'for use in the regulatory process'(working for the government).

On their site, they have no reference to their source of revenue other than soliciting for 'gifts'.

Since much if not most of their work is for governments and they they're not forthcoming about their source of funding, I assume that they can not be trusted.

About TPM: I clicked the 'about' for them too. It's the far left version of Drudge Report.

Basically this is just a bunch of blah about you trusting corporations and absolutely not any government funded scientists of the world (since a lot of research is international), and claiming that all research proving that modern climate change is man enhanced is a big scam and cover up for scientists wanting to keep their jobs.

And corporations, such as oil, coal and motor vehicles are...honest in their claims that man enhanced climate change is a bunch of "hysterics".

yeah okay. It's laughable that you think the market would be "free" should government fold and completely stay out of it.

Someone could probably lead you into a research facility, show you the latest instruments measuring atmospheric particles and how they have changed over the recent decades, explain every detail to you, show you how they've looked historically, have you look for yourself on the results, and you still would not believe, because it's a "guvurnment coverup".

Well said.

As a person, I tend to like ofbg -- but in this instance, his
argument basically boils down to "I dont trust them....because I dont"
and then he turns around and trusts special interest groups instead.

"I dont trust them....because I dont"

It's because they proved they're untrustworthy with fraudulent science. If there is real science behind any of it, the burden of proof is now in their lap. Sux to be them and us, if there's any legitimacy to it at all.

It's also clear that the governments, from the UN to the nationals, have a political agenda. POWER.

There are actually numerous pieces of research on this very matter that is open to the public. I visited the climate research center in Boulder and have read some studies and measurements. Not a big deal, but hey, I guess you think they are all "tampered with".

(no subject)

lafinjack.livejournal.com - 2010-11-18 17:08 (UTC) - Expand

Yeah, it's tin foil hat shit. If you look at a 9/11 truther and anti global warming types, it's the same mentality. GOVT cover-up and involvement in some vast conspiracy. .

"because it's a "guvurnment coverup"."

No because the global warming advocates have lost all creditability due to the aforementioned fraud, dishonesty and deceit.

They cut their own throats and maybe ours too!(if there was any truth to their theory)