The Greenland ice sheet

Meltng fast or slow? -A scientific view

Geology, Geophysics, Oceanography, Meteorology etc.

Moderators: Darkchilde, Calilasseia

The Greenland ice sheet

 
 

The Greenland ice sheet

#1  Postby Dudely » Mar 31, 2011 1:30 pm

I have some outstanding questions surrounding the Greenland ice sheet and the risk of it melting and causing sea level rises. There seems to be no real consensus and it would be good to get the facts without their conclusions.

First, I will explain what I already know. This should be a good educational bit for anyone new to the topic as well as give a background for my questions.


Some notes on the mechanisms:

Ice loss happens at the edge of the sheet. The middle won't melt because it acts like a sheet of ice on your driveway- gradually melting from the edges. The main mechanisms are the sheer melting of the ice and icebergs breaking off. Generally, this area is <100km in from the edge of this sheet. Its exact size depends on the topography.

The sheet itself can still shrink and get lower even though just the edges are melting because it often spreads out towards the coast, since the lost ice is no longer holding it up. This is similar to removing sand from the bottom of a steep pile. I don't think we've seen a great deal of this in Greenland yet, but I could be mistaken.

It still snows, and this increases the size of the ice sheet. By some accounts, a warming trend would increase precipitation and slow the overall melting by heightening the sheet as a whole. Not enough to make up for all the melting of course, but enough to make a substantial difference.


Some facts about the Greenland ice sheet:

Currently, Greenland is losing ice at a rate of about 50 cubic miles (~200+ cubic km) per year, based on satellite readings. Currently 75% of that comes from small coastal glaciers, not the sheet itself reference. It has been estimated as high as nearly 600 km a year, but that was for one year (2007) with unusually low precipitation. By all accounts ice loss is accelerating.

While exceedingly difficult to predict, a temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius seems likely. According to Wikipedia,the IPCC has said this will result in a sea level rise of 1 meter over the next millennium due to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet reference. A more accurate statement would be they have said it would cause a rise of +80 to +100 mm in global sea level between 1990 and 2100.


My questions:

Is it not true that when the ice melts the air around it cools? To me, it would stand to reason that not only would the ice insulate itself, but the melting of the ice would cool the air around it, preventing further melting. I can no longer find the source, but I once saw some math which showed that it would take 50,000 years for the sheet to completely melt if it was placed in the Sahara and the mitigating effects of the atmosphere were completely taken away. Obviously there are problems with that statement, but it works to show that even if it was above freezing in the arctic 24/7 it would still take a long time for the ice to melt. Why then are some scientists (like James Hansen) talking about "dynamical feedbacks and disintegration of a substantial portion of the ice sheet". What mechanisms are scientists proposing to explain a prediction of meters of sea level increases in a century or two while others are talking on the order of mm?



Why have I not mentioned Antarctica?
Antarctica is not considered in this post because it's so big a temperature change won't affect it to same same extent as Greenland for quite some time. The huge masses of untouched inland ice will help keep the coasts cool, so to speak. As put by the IPCC toward the end of one of my given references: "Because of its longer response time-scales, the Antarctic ice sheet hardly exhibits any dynamic response on a century time-scale". In other words, it'll take a long time to melt. It will melt just the same, but it will happen more slowly; Greenland is our pressing concern. Also, any answers or explanations offered for Greenland ice melt should apply to Antarctica anyway.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1121

Canada (ca)

Re: The Greenland ice sheet

#2  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Mar 31, 2011 11:17 pm

Dudely wrote:I have some outstanding questions surrounding the Greenland ice sheet and the risk of it melting and causing sea level rises. There seems to be no real consensus and it would be good to get the facts without their conclusions. (snippage)

I would direct you to this: Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures

This report was prepared and published by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)'s World Glacial Monitoring Service in 2009 and is available on the web as a free PDF download (search for it on the title using Google).

This is from its section titled "Conclusions,"


The internationally coordinated collection of information about ongoing glacier changes since 1894 and the efforts towards the compilation of a world glacier inventory have resulted in unprecedented data sets.

Several generations of glaciologists around the world have contributed with their data to the present state of knowledge. For the second half of the 20th century, preliminary estimates of the global distribution of glaciers and ice caps covering some 685 000 km2, are available, including detailed information on about 100 000 glaciers, and digital outlines for about 62 000 glaciers.

The database on glacier fluctuations includes 36 240 length change observations from 1803 glaciers as far back as the late 19th century, as well as about 3 400 annual mass balance measurements from 226 glaciers covering the past six decades. All data is digitally made available by the WGMS and its cooperation partners, the NSIDC and the GLIMS initiative.

The glacier moraines formed during the end of the LIA, between the 17th and the second half of the 19th century, mark Holocene maximum extents of glaciers in most of the world‘s mountain ranges. From these positions, glaciers around the globe have been shrinking significantly, with strong glacier retreats in the 1940s, stable or growing conditions around the 1970s, and again increasing rates of ice loss since the mid 1980s.

On a shorter time scale, glaciers in various mountain ranges have shown intermittent re-advances. Looking at individual fluctuation series, a high variability and sometimes contradictory behaviour of neighbouring ice bodies are found which can be explained by the different glacier characteristics. The early mass balance measurements indicate strong ice losses as early as the 1940s and 1950s, followed by a moderate ice loss between 1966 and 1985, and accelerating ice losses until present. The global average annual mass loss of more than half a metre water equivalent during the decade of 1996 to 2005 represents twice the ice loss of the previous decade (1986–95) and over four times the rate of the decade from 1976 to 1985. Prominent periods of regional mass gains are found in the Alps in the late 1970s and early 1980s and in coastal Scandinavia and New Zealand in the 1990s.

Under current IPCC climate scenarios, the ongoing trend of worldwide and rapid, if not accelerating, glacier shrinkage on the century time scale is most likely to be of a non-periodic nature, and may lead to the deglaciation of large parts of many
mountain ranges by the end of the 21st century.

In view of the incompleteness of the detailed inventory of glaciers and ice caps and the spatio-temporal bias of the available fluctuation series towards the Northern Hemisphere and Europe, it is of critical importance that glacier monitoring in the 21st century:

• continues long-term fluctuation series (i.e., length change and mass balance) in combination with decadal determinations of volume/thickness and length changes from geodetic methods in order to verify the annual field observations,

• re-initiates interrupted long-term series in strategically important regions and strengthens the current monitoring network in the regions wich are currently sparsely covered (e.g. Tropics, South America, Asia, and the polar regions),

• integrates reconstructed glacier states and variations into the present monitoring system in order to extend the historical set of length change data and to put the measured glacier fluctuations of the last 150 years into context with glacier variations during the Holocene,

• replaces long-term monitoring series of vanishing glaciers with timely starting parallel observations on larger or higher-reaching glaciers,

• concentrates the extent of the field observation network mainly on (seasonal) mass balance measurements, because they are the most direct indication of glacier reaction to climate changes,

• makes use of decadal digital elevation model differencing, and similar techniques, to extend and understand the representativeness of the field measurements to/for the regional ice changes,

• completes a global glacier inventory, e.g., for the 1970s (cf. WGMS 1989),

• defines key regions, where the glacier cover is relevant to climate change, sea level rise, hydrological issues and natural hazards, and in which repeated detailed inventories assess glacier changes (e.g., from the trim lines of the LIA) around
2000, and of the coming decades, with respect to the global baseline inventory, and

• periodically re-evaluates the feasibility and relevance of the monitoring strategy and its implementation.

The potentially dramatic climate changes, as sketched for the 21st century by IPCC (2007) refer to glacier changes of historical dimensions with strong impacts on landscape evolution, fresh water supply, natural hazards and sea level changes. This requires that international glacier monitoring makes use of the rapidly developing new technologies (remote sensing and geoinformatics) and relate them to the more traditional field observations, in order to face the challenges of the 21st century.


Also, Hansen published a paper recently (with another researcher from Columbia's Earth Sciences program) in which he sets forth some research on paleo temperatures as correlated to the rise and fall of some half dozen Ice Ages that they contend show we have now entered upon a temp regime that will induce deglaciation of the planet until all or nearly of of earth's ice is gone. You can probably find this using Google. I have it here somewhere on my mchine but a scan for it a moment ago did not turn it up (I'll keep looking and when/if I find it I'll post the particualrs here).

Meanwhile, carry on!
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Posts: 5731
Age: 80
Male

Canada (ca)

Re: The Greenland ice sheet

#3  Postby Dudely » Apr 01, 2011 3:04 pm

A great start Fact-Man; thanks!

I'm also really excited about all the climatology work NASA is doing. The satellites that are up there right now are going to give us a 1000x better picture of what's going on over the next 25 years compared to the last 25.
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1121

Canada (ca)

Re: The Greenland ice sheet

 
 

Re: The Greenland ice sheet

#4  Postby Macdoc » Apr 01, 2011 5:49 pm

Nice to see an honest enquirer.

Cryosphere dynamics are exceedingly complex

Greenland is losing about 200 cu km a year and to put that in perspective - due to latent heat we are providing the thermal equivalent of 2000 hiroshima sized nukes per day to achieve that level of melt.

Why I'm being dramatic is to illustrate the imbalance that is leading to a net mass loss of 200 cu km and the scale of energies required to do that.

To a point glacial masses create their own environment but air and in particular ocean transport heat to the poles from the equator and if that heat melts more ice than is deposited you have a glacial net mass loss and imbalance that is ongoing and can lead to catastrophic losses as we have seen with regards to the coastal ice shelves, some of which have been in place for thousands of years and in the case of the Canadian Arctic are gone in a few decades - these are enormous ice shelves but warm air, water loosen them from their attachment and they float south an melt.

To a less degree this is occurring in the Western Antarctic shelves as well.

Many of these shelves act to slow the glacier flow down - with them gone and the lubrication of melt water - some glaciers accelerate dramatically.

This is very evident in mid-latitude glaciers where some have disappeared entirely - the Alps in particular is very vulnerable.

One thing you miss in your comments is sublimation where by glaciers lose mass directly to water vapour without a melt stage

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.U32B..10B

and

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenla ... hwest.html

and

http://www.igsoc.org/journal/41/137/igs ... 53-160.pdf

and this a very good overview

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesummary.html

The larger question is at what level of CO2 warming the total loss of the Greenland ice and the Western Antarctic are inevitable instead of reaching a new equilibrium.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-re ... ate-system

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-CO ... lapse.html

Some think it's past..... :(

http://eideard.wordpress.com/2011/01/15 ... year-3000/
Image
Mainstream climate science sources.
http://www.macmagic.ca/ubbthreads.php?u ... #Post45753
Kill coal support Nuclear power
learn here >
http://bravenewclimate.com/
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 1648

Country: Canada/Australia
Canada (ca)


Return to Earth Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest