http://smithplanet.com/stuff/iceandwater.htm

What happens when you apply this to oceans and ice sheets? There's an estimated 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of ocean water. If put into a single cube, this water would be 1090 kilometers (675 miles) on each side and be 1090 kilometers high. It would fill a bath tub the size of Texas that is 30 miles tall! That's a lot of water, though when you consider that the volume of Earth is just over 1 trillion cubic kilometers, ocean water makes up about .1% of Earth's volume (though incredible it covers 70% of it's surface, which shows how shallow the ocean really is)!

There's an estimated 660,000 cubic kilometers of floating sea ice. If put into one block, it would be 87km (54 miles) on each side (about the footprint of the state of Delaware) and 87km high.

If all of that ice were to melt, what impact would it have on the ocean levels? If both the ice and the sea water were both fresh water (or both salt water), it would have no impact at all (excluding all other factors, such as water temperature). But because of the difference in salinity (density) of the sea water and the ice, the increase in volume would be about 2.6% of the volume of the melted ice water, which when added to the volume of the oceans, would raise the ocean level only about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches). Details here.

Note that this only accounts for floating sea ice. The total amount of non-floating Arctic and Antarctic ice is about 50 times higher, and because this is not currently floating (and displacing sea water), if it were all to melt the sea levels would rise significantly.

Note that this only accounts for floating sea ice. The total amount of non-floating Arctic and Antarctic ice is about 50 times higher, and because this is not currently floating (and displacing sea water), if it were all to melt the sea levels would rise significantly.


So whats your point?

So if ALL the floating ice melted - seas level would rise by 4cm

Fixed ice is 50 times more than floating ice. Would it be reasonable to say if ALL ice melt you would multiply 50 by 4cm?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 9:59pm:

So if ALL the floating ice melted - seas level would rise by 4cm Fixed ice is 50 times more than floating ice. Would it be reasonable to say if ALL ice melt you would multiply 50 by 4cm?

No it must be more than that. Floating ice already displaces water. About 10% of the volume of floating ice is above the water. Fixed ice is 100% above water. Therefore fixed ice above the water line should have about ten times the effect.

The sea level rise is expected to occur because as things heat they expand, more than because of extra water being added due to melting ice.

The above is not important.

Most of the world's ice is in the Antarctic continent &
is about 2 kilometers thick.
If that melted we would be in big trouble but
it is not likely to do so
even in millions of years from now.

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 10:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 9:59pm: So if ALL the floating ice melted - seas level would rise by 4cm Fixed ice is 50 times more than floating ice. Would it be reasonable to say if ALL ice melt you would multiply 50 by 4cm? No it must be more than that. Floating ice already displaces water. About 10% of the volume of floating ice is above the water. Fixed ice is 100% above water. Therefore fixed ice above the water line should have about ten times the effect.

The article disagree with you

It says of all melting ice melted the sea would rise 4cm

There are 50 times more fixed ice than floating ice

So would it be reasonable to say the sea would rise 50 x 4cm if ALL ice melted?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 10:15pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 10:08pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 9:59pm: So if ALL the floating ice melted - seas level would rise by 4cm Fixed ice is 50 times more than floating ice. Would it be reasonable to say if ALL ice melt you would multiply 50 by 4cm? No it must be more than that. Floating ice already displaces water. About 10% of the volume of floating ice is above the water. Fixed ice is 100% above water. Therefore fixed ice above the water line should have about ten times the effect. The article disagree with you It says of all melting ice melted the sea would rise 4cm There are 50 times more fixed ice than floating ice So would it be reasonable to say the sea would rise 50 x 4cm if ALL ice melted?

Your articles says melting sea ice contributes about 2.6% to volume.

No. [50 x 4 x [1/0.026] +4] = 77 metres because the floating ice has only 2.6% of its volume above water so the volume below water is already accounted for in sea level. The ice above sea level is not immersed in water therefore it will have 38.4 [=1/0.026] times the effect of sea ice.

That is based on your information which appears to underestimate the volume of land ice.

However a web site has calculations which predict a rise of around 68 metre if all ice melted. I am sure I have seen figures with even higher values  which includes the thermal effect of expansion of water with increasing temperature which will cause further sea level rise.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

Its average sea depth is about 3,688 meters (12,100 ft), and its maximum depth is 10,994 meters (6.831 mi) at the Mariana Trench. Nearly half of the world's marine waters are over 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) deep. The vast expanses of deep ocean (anything below 200 meters or 660 feet) cover about 66% of Earth's surface.

Volumetric coefficient of expansion for water is 0.000207/K.

Every 1 deg C in temperature rise of water will cause a sea level rise of 0.8 metre.

There may be other effects such as a rise in land level in locations where tall icebergs were melted from.

sun

then the two articles are in conflict with each other

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets

Interesting to note in the last 100 years the ocean rose 15cm to 20cm

Their prediction is 15cm to 95cm in the next 100 years

That's a huge margin of error

So what's my point?

Even on an issue such as sea level there are conflicting information and large margin of errors

So why should I or anyone else be called a "denier" when I question the information available out there??!!

Maqqa wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 1:06am:

Interesting to note in the last 100 years the ocean rose 15cm to 20cm Their prediction is 15cm to 95cm in the next 100 years That's a huge margin of error So what's my point? Even on an issue such as sea level there are conflicting information and large margin of errors So why should I or anyone else be called a "denier" when I question the information available out there??!!

You will be long dead before the effects are evident. The concern is for your children's children.

The greed of today's planetary denizens is risking the future for their progeny.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 10:15pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 10:08pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 9:59pm: So if ALL the floating ice melted - seas level would rise by 4cm Fixed ice is 50 times more than floating ice. Would it be reasonable to say if ALL ice melt you would multiply 50 by 4cm? No it must be more than that. Floating ice already displaces water. About 10% of the volume of floating ice is above the water. Fixed ice is 100% above water. Therefore fixed ice above the water line should have about ten times the effect. The article disagree with you It says of all meltingif all sea ice melted the sea would rise 4cm There are 50 times more fixed ice than floating ice So would it be reasonable to say the sea would rise 50 x 4cm if ALL ice melted?

No it would not be reasonable to say that.
Sea ice is already in the sea and already displaces water.
It is melting land ice as well as thermal expansion of the oceans that is causing sea level rise.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/11/loss-of-land-ice-not-sea-ice-more-sea-level-rise/

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

No it would not be reasonable to say that. Sea ice is already in the sea and already displaces water. It is melting land ice as well as thermal expansion of the oceans that is causing sea level rise. http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/11/loss-of-land-ice-not-sea-ice-more-sea-level-rise/

Yes - the fixed ice

The article I posted says there are 50 times more fixed ice than floating ice

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 9:13am:

You will be long dead before the effects are evident. The concern is for your children's children. The greed of today's planetary denizens is risking the future for their progeny.

And if Australia cuts emissions by 100% - Australia would be stuffed and the planet would still be F#CK3d

So what's the point

Bobby. wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 10:13pm:

The above is not important. Most of the world's ice is in the Antarctic continent & is about 2 kilometers thick. If that melted we would be in big trouble but it is not likely to do so even in millions of years from now.

Antarctica will never melt: the issue is with rates of change and whether huge populations that live on the coast will need to move en masse.

The Southern Hemisphere is colder than the Northern Hemisphere for multiple reasons. Meaning, the Northern Hemisphere could experience changes that never happen here as the heat more or less stays in the Northern part of the globe.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 1:06am:

Interesting to note in the last 100 years the ocean rose 15cm to 20cm Their prediction is 15cm to 95cm in the next 100 years That's a huge margin of error So what's my point? Even on an issue such as sea level there are conflicting information and large margin of errors So why should I or anyone else be called a "denier" when I question the information available out there??!!

You don't like labels?  :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 1:33pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 28th, 2015 at 9:13am: You will be long dead before the effects are evident. The concern is for your children's children. The greed of today's planetary denizens is risking the future for their progeny. And if Australia cuts emissions by 100% - Australia would be stuffed and the planet would still be F#CK3d So what's the point

No one is asking Australia to cut emissions by 100%

:D

If you think 20 million Australians can tell the world to get bugger** then you fight the war  :o

If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D

beer wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D

Why would the atmosphere get more humidity?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 11:59am:

Why would the atmosphere get more humidity?

Because according to the theory warmer air can retain more water vapour. More water vapour higher humidity.

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:59am: Why would the atmosphere get more humidity? Because according to the theory warmer air can retain more water vapour. More water vapour higher humidity.

Perhaps, but I doubt this would automatically mean desert areas get more rain. Its more likely high rain areas like the tropics will get more rain.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:07pm:

Perhaps, but I doubt this would automatically mean desert areas get more rain. Its more likely high rain areas like the tropics will get more rain.

Perhaps. But do the deserts need more rain?

'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research. '

http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

Of course greening of the deserts suggest more envirotranspiration.

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:10pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:07pm: Perhaps, but I doubt this would automatically mean desert areas get more rain. Its more likely high rain areas like the tropics will get more rain. Perhaps. But do the deserts need more rain? 'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research. ' http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2 Of course greening of the deserts suggest more envirotranspiration.

CO2 is not the only limiting factor to plant growth.

;)

- you couldn't sell a fridge at harvey norman buddy  :D :D

beer wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D

Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ever heard of soil?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Ever heard of soil?

So what is the lack of nutrients that prohibit growth?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

CO2 is not the only limiting factor to plant growth. Wink

Perhaps you should tell the CSIRO. Explain where they are going wrong.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:58am: If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever heard of soil?

I would not expect a flower just growing out from middle of sand desert with a bucket of water. Event imagine in this way is stupid. ;D

The point is one humidity is higher, means more rains, the borders of desert will move towards itself center.  :D

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:31pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: Ever heard of soil? So what is the lack of nutrients that prohibit growth?

...seriously, is that a question?

beer wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:58am: If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever heard of soil? I would not expect a flower just growing out from middle of sand desert with a bucket of water. Event imagine in this way is stupid. ;D The point is one humidity is higher, means more rains, the borders of desert will move towards itself center.  :D

Yes, in your dreams that may be true!

::) ::)

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:22pm: CO2 is not the only limiting factor to plant growth. Wink Perhaps you should tell the CSIRO. Explain where they are going wrong.

I don't think you will find the CSIRO admitting that CO2 is the only limiting factor to plant growth!

Further, I don't think you will find farming even exists in Australia without Government departmental input.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:48pm:

lee wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:31pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: Ever heard of soil? So what is the lack of nutrients that prohibit growth? ...seriously, is that a question?

I thought you would know what nutrients are lacking, seeing as you seem to be omniscient. Add nutrients to sand - get soil.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

I don't think you will find the CSIRO admitting that CO2 is the only limiting factor to plant growth! Further, I don't think you will find farming even exists in Australia without Government departmental input.

But you seem happy to say CO2 is not enough. With which I agree. So CSIRO must be missing something in the study.

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 1:02pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:48pm: lee wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:31pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: Ever heard of soil? So what is the lack of nutrients that prohibit growth? ...seriously, is that a question? I thought you would know what nutrients are lacking, seeing as you seem to be omniscient. Add nutrients to sand - get soil.

Yeh buddy: and there's only 2 kingdoms and stuff  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:56pm: I don't think you will find the CSIRO admitting that CO2 is the only limiting factor to plant growth! Further, I don't think you will find farming even exists in Australia without Government departmental input. But you seem happy to say CO2 is not enough. With which I agree. So CSIRO must be missing something in the study.

Dear mr wolf with a crack pipe: you don't even seem to be privy to what the article says  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

(oops, google can't help me find the accompanying image i had in mind: FREEDIVER, WHERE ARE YOU WHEN WE NEED YOU BUDDY?) ((  8-)))

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 12:52pm:

beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:44pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:58am: If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever heard of soil? I would not expect a flower just growing out from middle of sand desert with a bucket of water. Event imagine in this way is stupid. ;D The point is one humidity is higher, means more rains, the borders of desert will move towards itself center.  :D Yes, in your dreams that may be true! ::) ::)

Do you have any opinions ever generated from your own brain? if any, can you summarize and list below? I'm not talking about well known theories the media told you and I don't need any references, google does it much bettter.  ;D

beer wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 1:48pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:52pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:44pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:58am: If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever heard of soil? I would not expect a flower just growing out from middle of sand desert with a bucket of water. Event imagine in this way is stupid. ;D The point is one humidity is higher, means more rains, the borders of desert will move towards itself center.  :D Yes, in your dreams that may be true! ::) ::) Do you have any opinions ever generated from your own brain? if any, can you summarize and list below? I'm not talking about well known theories the media told you and I don't need any references, google does it much bettter.  ;D

If that wasn't my opinion then I surrender to your silver spoon fed ego  ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 1:48pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:52pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:44pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:58am: If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever heard of soil? I would not expect a flower just growing out from middle of sand desert with a bucket of water. Event imagine in this way is stupid. ;D The point is one humidity is higher, means more rains, the borders of desert will move towards itself center.  :D Yes, in your dreams that may be true! ::) ::) Do you have any opinions ever generated from your own brain? if any, can you summarize and list below? I'm not talking about well known theories the media told you and I don't need any references, google does it much bettter.  ;D If that wasn't my opinion then I surrender to your silver spoon fed ego  ;)

A smart answer, isn't it ;)

beer wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 2:32pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 2:22pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 1:48pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:52pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:44pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:58am: If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever heard of soil? I would not expect a flower just growing out from middle of sand desert with a bucket of water. Event imagine in this way is stupid. ;D The point is one humidity is higher, means more rains, the borders of desert will move towards itself center.  :D Yes, in your dreams that may be true! ::) ::) Do you have any opinions ever generated from your own brain? if any, can you summarize and list below? I'm not talking about well known theories the media told you and I don't need any references, google does it much bettter.  ;D If that wasn't my opinion then I surrender to your silver spoon fed ego  ;) A smart answer, isn't it ;)

An insane one, actually.

beer wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 2:32pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 2:22pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 1:48pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:52pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:44pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:58am: If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever heard of soil? I would not expect a flower just growing out from middle of sand desert with a bucket of water. Event imagine in this way is stupid. ;D The point is one humidity is higher, means more rains, the borders of desert will move towards itself center.  :D Yes, in your dreams that may be true! ::) ::) Do you have any opinions ever generated from your own brain? if any, can you summarize and list below? I'm not talking about well known theories the media told you and I don't need any references, google does it much bettter.  ;D If that wasn't my opinion then I surrender to your silver spoon fed ego  ;) A smart answer, isn't it ;)

Yes sifu http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130527232354/everybodyedits/images/7/7e/Kung_Fu_Master_Smiley.png  :o :o

beer wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 2:32pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 2:22pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 1:48pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:52pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:44pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 12:26pm: beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 11:58am: If all the ice gets melt, wouldn't the atmosphere be  more humid? then desert will become grass land? great!  ;D Surely plants need more than water and sand  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ever heard of soil? I would not expect a flower just growing out from middle of sand desert with a bucket of water. Event imagine in this way is stupid. ;D The point is one humidity is higher, means more rains, the borders of desert will move towards itself center.  :D Yes, in your dreams that may be true! ::) ::) Do you have any opinions ever generated from your own brain? if any, can you summarize and list below? I'm not talking about well known theories the media told you and I don't need any references, google does it much bettter.  ;D If that wasn't my opinion then I surrender to your silver spoon fed ego  ;) A smart answer, isn't it ;)

Yes sifu http://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/498865/498865,1325515350,5/stock-vector-chinese-emoticon-with-thumb-up-91803674.jpg  :o :o

The Australian jesus dispels the tide of deniers.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0163/3364/products/reg03r.jpg

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

The Australian jesus dispels the tide.

3027? See the movie at 9

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

The Australian jesus dispels the tide of deniers. http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0163/3364/products/reg03r.jpg

Is this new water theme park?  :D :D :D

beer wrote on Nov 30^th, 2015 at 8:53pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 6:03pm: The Australian jesus dispels the tide of deniers. http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0163/3364/products/reg03r.jpg Is this new water theme park?  :D :D :D

Yes. It's coming to your house. Enjoy.

Sun Tzu wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 11:05am:

beer wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 8:53pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 30th, 2015 at 6:03pm: The Australian jesus dispels the tide of deniers. http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0163/3364/products/reg03r.jpg Is this new water theme park?  :D :D :D Yes. It's coming to your house. Enjoy.

I will build a water slide in my yard, waiting for it. If my hill side property becomes breach side one, isn't it enjoyable?  ;D ;D :D

Greenland ice loss accelerating. Rate of loss doubled since 2003.

http://biotechin.asia/2016/01/03/staggering-amount-of-ice-lost-in-greenland/


Quote:

Staggering amount of ice lost in Greenland! A study has found that there has been a doubling of annual loss of ice mass in Greenland over the period of 2003 to 2010 compared with what it was throughout the 20th century. Published in the journal, Nature, a team of researchers led by Kristian K. Kjeldsen of the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen says the loss is unbelievable – 9,103 gigatons of ice lost since the year 1900. This information has been derived from a merger of multiple sources like extensive aerial photography, distinct marks left by retreating glaciers on the landscape, satellite observations, etc. The paper suggests that the glacier retreat more or less kicked off around 1900, it’s been much accelerated now when major human – caused global warming kicked in. Although there are variations on the estimates, NASA currently states that Greenland is losing 287 billion tons of ice per year. Greenland’s major mass loss has been occurring consistently from key regions – the northwest and southeast of the ice sheet. However, of late, there has been an alarming thinning from northeast of the ice sheet which holds back fully 12 percent of all of Greenland’s ice mass. Ice loss from Greenland today occurs through two key mechanisms – melting on the surface of the ice sheet followed by runoff into the ocean, and large calving events at marine based glaciers, which are followed by more flow of ice outward from behind them. The latter process can be quite dramatic which is capable of triggering huge earthquakes as gigaton-sized icebergs detach, roll in the water, and crash into glaciers behind them. The new research also suggests that Greenland accounts for much rise in sea level and the estimated ice loss of 9,103 gigatons is enough to submerge the entire U.S. interstate highway system and melting of the entire Greenland ice sheet would lead to roughly 20 feet of sea level rise. One of the most provoking consequence is that a truly gigantic amount of fresh water from Greenland and Canadian arctic glaciers moved into the North Atlantic Ocean and this could depress the Gulf Stream and alter North Atlantic circulation patterns that control weather. The key question for the future of Greenland’s ice is how high temperatures will go and how long they will stay there. Greenland is very complex and it’s very difficult to predict what will happen in the future. This also means our future estimates of sea level rise is unpredictable. Greenland has already contributed so much fresh water to the oceans, and that now its ice loss is speeding up, is more serious. Keeping the temperature below 2 degrees Celsius (or even better, 1.5 degrees Celsius), if achieved, may just be enough to prevent a scenario in which a total melt occurs over time. Source – The Washington Post.

So Greenland retained about 99.7% of its ice in the 20th Century. Scary.


Sun Tzu wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:03pm:

9,103 gigatons of ice lost since the year 1900.

Actually if you read the paper it is gigatonnes.

'This information has been derived from a merger of multiple sources like extensive aerial photography, distinct marks left by retreating glaciers on the landscape, satellite observations, etc.'

http://biotechin.asia/2016/01/03/staggering-amount-of-ice-lost-in-greenland/

Wow, who knew we could get such precision from aerial photographs. And the calculations involved absolutely mind boggling. Whose expert judgement was used?

Mix and match of "data" is such fun.