Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Greenland Ice Sheet Faces 'Tipping Point in 10 Years'
Scientists warn that temperature rise of between 2C and 7C would cause ice to melt, resulting in 23ft rise in sea level
WASHINGTON - The entire ice mass of Greenland will disappear from the world map if temperatures rise by as little as 2C, with severe consequences for the rest of the world, a panel of scientists told Congress Tuesday.
An enormous chunk of ice, roughly 97 square miles in size, has broken off the Petermann Glacier along the northwest coast of Greenland. (Photograph: Aqua/Modis/Nasa) Greenland shed its largest chunk
of ice in nearly half a century last week, and faces an even grimmer
future, according to Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at
Pennsylvania State University
"Sometime in the next decade we may pass that tipping point which would put us warmer than temperatures that Greenland can survive," Alley told a briefing in Congress, adding that a rise in the range of 2C to 7C would mean the obliteration of Greenland's ice sheet.
The fall-out would be felt thousands of miles away from the Arctic, unleashing a global sea level rise of 23ft (7 metres), Alley warned. Low-lying cities such as New Orleans would vanish.
"What is going on in the Arctic now is the biggest and fastest thing that nature has ever done," he said.
Speaking by phone, Alley was addressing a briefing held by the House of Representatives committee on energy independence and global warming.
Greenland is losing ice mass at an increasing rate, dumping more icebergs into the ocean because of warming temperatures, he said.
The stark warning was underlined by the momentous break-up of one of Greenland's largest glaciers last week, which set a 100 sq mile chunk of ice drifting into the North Strait between Greenland and Canada.
The briefing also noted that the last six months had set new temperature records.
Robert Bindschadler, a research scientist at the University of Maryland, told the briefing: "While we don't believe it is possible to lose an ice sheet within a decade, we do believe it is possible to reach a tipping point in a few decades in which we would lose the ice sheet in a century."
The ice loss from the Petermann Glacier was the largest such event in nearly 50 years, although there have been regular and smaller "calvings".
Petermann spawned two smaller breakaways: one of 34 sq miles in 2001 and another of 10 sq miles in 2008.
Andreas Muenchow, professor of ocean science at the University of Delaware, who has been studying the Petermann glacier for several years, said he had been expecting such a break, although he did not anticipate its size.
He also argued that much remains unknown about the interaction between Arctic sea ice, sea level, and temperature rise.
Muenchow told the briefing that over the last seven years he had only received funding to measure ocean temperatures near the Petermann Glacier for a total of three days.
He was also reduced, because of a lack of funding, to paying his own airfare and that of his students to they could join up with a Canadian icebreaker on a joint research project in the Arctic.
- Posted in
200 Comments so far
Show All"What is going on in the Arctic now is the biggest and fastest thing that nature has ever done," he said.
The "biggest and fastest" and "nature has ever done".... No way jose!
This is the kind of statement that doesn't pass the common sense test, and regardless of veracity, supports the warming deniers community.
I accept that one guy's off the cuff opinion over the telephone isn't well thought out. At least it's a heartfelt remark.
The disappearance of the Arctic Ocean's ice pack has been pretty dramatic. I've seen a cartoon of elves and reindeer clinging to ice fragments in the water. I wouldn't vouch for the scientific accuracy of the cartoon, but it gets the point across.
Kindred Spirit
You Fools!!
Don't mock this statement! Use your brains (if you have any).
Go and read 'Six Degrees' by Mark Lynas, (Harper Perennial, ISBN 978-0-00720905-7 ) published 3 years ago - he carefully reviewed the likely global scenarios with warming steps from 1 to 6 deg C. In the chapter headed '2 Degrees', he accurately predicted the locations & scale of all the current flood disasters taking place around the planet. Ignore this sort of analysis at your peril!
Too bad Mark Lyna$'s facts are from tampered studies and charts. Let's face it, he scared people into buying his book. $$$$$$$$. He wouldn't make money telling people "Everything is fine"
What do we expect to change in our daily lives that will make a difference? If I use less oil then my neighbor who doesn't care will say "more for me"
Let's learn to accept it and MOVE ON. Did you know we will all die one day?????
You go first.
Obviously, global warming is not an individual problem but a collective one. Collective problems demand collective solutions. Your glib comment is foolish.
I rest my case - we're in the company (apart from one or two notable exceptions on this page) of FOOLS!
You use less anyway. We DO nee dtough laws that will reduce fuel usage, but waiting for your neighbor to act before you act is infantile.
But too many laws will cause more job losses.
I agree.
"Realist" may be king of phantasy makers. Yes, "You go first."
What does it mean to be the kindred spirit of "fools"?
Not what does it mean? How does it FEEL to be the kindred spirit of fools? Answer: Ultimately very depressing. CD is a fantastic site, raising issues we all need to examine critically. But many of the people subscribing to the 'comments' section would, very sorry to say, appear to be nitpicking fools! And sadly uneducated -viz a comment here in this series from Stone, who presumably believes in the technological superstate which is the US, bravely reversing the ravages of nature with the application of a flotilla of boats and helicopters ferrying cold water to the regions of the earth that need it. Too much Hollywood and not enough practical common sense, likewise a silly argument based on average temp fluctuations in the Arctic. Sorry guys but I despair! The US used to be the hope of the world, now it is the world's biggest collection of total idiots.
It means you are an Obama apologist.
Exactly. He sould have said: This is the biggest and fastest change in polar climate and physoigraphy since the the Great Permian Extinction, 251 million years ago.
And, as far as "supporting the deniers community" are you suggesting that scientists do their science the way democrats do politics?
NO.... I'm suggesting that scientists stick to science and leave the emotional baggage behind. My comment was to point out the emotions may rile some; however, its exactly what those who stand in the way of change will throw out into the mainstream media, and rightly so as I previously commented, as something blown out of proportion that does not pass the common sense test. Hey... don't get me wrong here. Nature will show its hand soon enough.
Yes, savroD. And you forgot to add that there are a few typos in this article. But why focus on the irrelevant, rather than the main message? Is professor Alley’s hyperbolic statement really more important than his message that we are cooked?
I’m sorry, but comments like yours are infuriating!
It's not IRRELEVENT in a world where big media puts the most hyperbolic comments out there to gain viewers.
It's immature comments like yours that infuriate me!
>>>>> if temperatures rise by as little as 2C
No need to put the 7C number in the article.
While Arctic ice melts, and Russian forests burn, the US government and the US population do not waver in keeping their focus on their two highest priorities: 1) Help Israel take more land from the Palestinians; 2) Take control of other nations' oil so that we can keep burning it. We are a nation of looters, pirates, gangsters, who use military might and intimidation to take what we want from others, even though it does not result in any great quality of life for us. We may have the financial and technological resources to slow or stop the global warming process, but we have other priorities.
"We are a nation of looters, pirates, gangsters, who use military might and intimidation to take what we want from others, even though it does not result in any great quality of life for us. We may have the financial and technological resources to slow or stop the global warming process, but we have other priorities."
Be careful with your use of "we" and "us".
Different people and groups within countries have different goals, morals and actions. People like Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams and Otto Reich are not part of what most Americans think of as "us", yet these are the types making gangster decisions, and profiting from them.
Not you.
3) Lady Gaga, Lindsay Lohan, etc.
Regarding item 1:
The Israelis have already taken all of the Palestinian's land. Right now they are working on a slow motion final solution to the Palestinian question.
Interesting aside on the giant new Petermann-calved iceberg:
it is possible that this thing will block the Nares Strait and prevent other ice from escaping into the Lincoln Sea. This would be only a temporary effect, of course, but it's the first instance I've come across of negative feedback from a (warming?) event. All others (i.e., the melting of the arctic ice-pack) seem to produce positive feedback.
There are ways to chill the waters and we could always send ships and helicopters to carry water back to the glaciers and create new ones. I think that there are brilliant scientists who know how to restore Greenland's ice sheet but the environmentalists are getting in their way. They want to make money from failure, blame us, and tell us how to live our lives. If I am wrong, then why is nothing being done with modern technology to restore the glaciers and ice sheets ?
I'm happy to listen and read creative ideas. Can your provide me with an objective study or article so that I could read more? Thanks.
Pray tell how those "ships and helicopters" will turn that water into snow and get it to fall on the circs?
Your whole comment demonstrates the high degree of nincompoopness you have acheived and would generate roars of laughter if it weren't so sad.
It's easy, we'll bring in gigantic nuclear powered refrigerators with humongous ice cube dispensers, and giant umbrellas to cover Greenland so the ice cubes won't melt! And if we have extra ice cubes left over, we can make ice cream and Margaritas!
"nincompoopness"
I like the word asshattery...
Michael, I don't believe there is any technological solution to restore the Greenland ice sheet. Your claim is an astonishing one and you move from this dubious claim to blaming environmentalists. Why don't you substantiate your dubious claim before blaming the people who are trying to seriously address global warming?
Right, I'll just give credit to those overpaid environmentalists working with the greenwashers. Pay no attention to great new ideas and inventions from the little guys. I may not be one of them but I listen too. What have the environmentalists done all these decades? You remind me of my first ex-gf who'd rub me off with her environmental talk before she dumped me for a rich conservative. I'm sure some environmentalists mean well but still trying to make sense of what they really mean or want. Some people say I'm too hard on them and some say I'm not tough enough. What is this supposed to be, Goldilocks and the Three Enviro-Bears? I'm confused.
Yes, you're (totally) confused"...
That's all you have to say? Go back and have your milk and cookies.
You have no sense of proportion on this issue. Your whole post is childish nonsense, including the part about environmentalists cashing in on this disaster.
Brilliant scientists should be working on prevention and mitigation, such as how to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels. That is realistic, if perhaps too little too late.
Joe
Ok mister know it all "genius". Give us your solutions to restoring the ice.
You know why most Americans are getting tired of talking about "global warming" ad nauseum? Environmentalists need a disaster to scream about. Why would they want to fix it? Hey, they do business too. Check out the cheesy horny goofy "going green" commercials and TV shows. Name one single environmentalist who's fixed an environmental problem.
There's no how to on stopping extracting and burning fossil fuels. They just do it, everybody screams, and either we go back and continue or a new technology takes its place. I don't see a new technology that can take its place yet. Even in North Dakota, wind accounts for only 7% of the electrical energy while fossil fuels 93%. Nuclear energy could change that.
"...Name one single environmentalist who's fixed an environmental problem."
John Muir.
I looked him up. Great guy and he co-founded the Sierra Club. I don't think he'd like what it's been like today if he were alive. Thanks for mentioning him.
Wind energy development is just starting. Yes, I think nuclear has a role.
A lot of it is simply using less. Simple, painless or even fun lifestyle changes (riding a low-cc or electric motor scooters is fun), and some changes to our city infrastructrue and public transit improvements, energy usage can be cut to 30% of current levels.
LOL! Greenland isn't a large ice cube tray u idiot! The Ice sheet is a mile thick! Almost as thick as your head.
Classy !
There are a couple of problems with man restoring glaciers and ice sheets. First the amount of energy needed to do it makes it impossible. You would have to scale up the desert skiing facility in Dubai millions of times, which is just not possible.
Second refrigeration works by taking heat out of an enclosed area, and depositing it outside of that enclosed area to cool the inside of the unit. So as you try to cool water to create snow or ice you are just pumping that heat energy back into the environment. And because you cant get more energy out of a system than you put into it, the whole effort becomes a net energy loss. So by trying to recreate the ice you create more net heat energy than the cooling you would get from the ice you made. You end up making the situation worse, than if you did nothing.
That's true but I was thinking of adding it to where the coldest exists. Some cool will be lost but something should work. Ok yeah, it's a complicated process. I don't know Greenland's climate but this thing about the ice sheet fallout sounded too hysterical. I'm still trying to make sense of these stories and trying to find some answer, any answer. But thanks for the reminder. I'll rethink this one.
There is a "spectrum" of bad situations and their answers. Sometimes there are answers that we can act on, because they are within our means to do so and they do not make us too uncomfortable. Example; chloro-floro-carbons ruining the Ozone layer in the Atmosphere. (Remember that?) Yea it was a bit of a pain, and it was fairly expensive, but there were alternatives so we made the changes we needed to because the changes didn't make our lives too uncomfortable or difficult.
Then there are the bad situations like a giant mass extinction sized astroid hitting the Earth and resulting in the destruction of most of the life on earth. There is no solution to that problem. Nothing we can do to stop it, and nothing we can do to survive it long term because the time for the environment to recover would be too long.
Then there are the answers to the bad situations that fall between those two extremes. The answers to bad situations that are just difficult enough, and make us just uncomfortable enough, that even though we as a group could/should do something about it, we will choose not to. That is where I figure we are with climate change. People in the industrialized world would probably need to go back to living in an energy equivalent way as people around 1800 or so did, and I doubt people are going to do that, even if it means the long term survival of their own children and grandchildren. The changes needed are just too uncomfortable, and deniability of what is happening is still possible, so nothing meaningful will be done. That is why looking at a new born baby no longer gives me the joy it once did. Life on the planet that baby will grow old on will most likely be much more difficult and unpleasant than the one we are living on now.
I don't think we are going to be looked back on fondly...
I hear a lot of solutions too. Some I like, some I don't. I'm not sure about doing it all 1800. I had your post in mind when I just mentioned bringing back steam engines.
What I meant was going back to 1800 levels of energy usage, not to 1800s technology. I picked 1800 because that was just prior to the industrial revolution really kicking in, and our energy usage and emissions becoming unsustainable over the long term.
Actually, they are well on their way to cataloging the earth-crossing orbits every asteroid more than a km wide, and there are a number of deflection schemes that are perfectly doable with enough advance warning.
As far as applying technology to the problem, not a lot is needed.
I live in the same house on the same street as my neighbors, but use a fraction of the fossil energy of my neighbors - I simply live differently. I use AC very sparingly - 5 days so far on this unusually hot summer, zero days last summer. Sweaters and lower indoor temperatures in winter, ride the bus, and use and battery-electric motor scooter.
When I first read the question, I thought of about 20 snarky replies. Thank you for taking the time to calmly and rationally explain why it wouldn't be possible to restore the glaciers. I noticed some others responding as i initially planned to do. Not pretty, not nice and not necessary. Kudos to you for spreading knowledge instead of rancor. I've learned something valuable from you today Tom and it has nothing to do with refrigeration. :)
Thank you for your civility. You are right. I wish I had not been drawn in to ad hominem. NC-Tom explained it nicely. Also JohnShade.
But I do think that people should try to apply some simple high school knowledge about heat, temperature, ice etc. before disparaging climate scientists and before proposing flippant solutions to a tough and potentially disastrous situation.
Joe
While I agree with you, most of us have probably at some point told someone, "There is no such thing as a stupid question." I've been reading on this site for about a year and have been impressed with the level of knowledge so many have. I'd like this to be a safe place where any question can be asked, because surely someone out there has an answer. If we can just get past our feelings of intellectual superiority there's a lot of important information to share, with anyone who asks. I wish I always held to this ideal, but unfortunately I don't. We all get testy from time to time and I didn't mean to point fingers.
It's ok. I was the one being too hasty when I asked. Still trying to make sense of all this. I wished the colleges would have professors open to students asking questions instead of them talking to the walls and confusing everyone. My college education turned out broken and sappy. Sorry to get frustrated and flared up. I'm glad to learn here but I'll try not to flare up. Thanks for understanding though.