Greenland update for 2010: record melting and a massive calving event
No humans were present on the morning of August 4, 2010, in a remote fjord in Northwest Greenland, when the air vibrated with a thunderous crack as one of the largest icebergs in world history calved from the Petermann Glacier, the island's second largest ocean-terminating glacier. Where the glacier meets the sea, a 43 mile-long tongue of floating ice existed at the beginning of 2010. On August 4 2010, a quarter of this 43 mile-long tongue of floating ice fractured off, spawning a 100 square mile ice island four times the size of Manhattan, with a thickness half that of the Empire State building. According to Andreas Muenchow, associate professor of physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware's College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, the freshwater stored in this ice island could have kept the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years, or kept all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days. There was speculation that the ice island could find its way into the open Atlantic Ocean in two years, and potentially pose a threat to oil platforms and ships. However, as the ice island made its turn to get from the narrow Petermann Fjord to enter Nares Strait between Greenland and Canada, the mighty iceberg split into thousands of small icebergs that will not pose an unusual threat to shipping when they emerge into the Atlantic.
Figure 1. The 100 square-mile ice island that broke off the Petermann Glacier heads out of the Petermann Fjord in this image taken by NASA's Aqua satellite on August 21, 2010. Image credit: NASA. I've constructed a 7-frame satellite animation available here that shows the calving and break-up of the Petermann Glacier ice island. The animation begins on August 5, 2010, and ends on September 21, with images spaced about 8 days apart. The images were taken by NASA's Aqua and Terra satellites.
Petermann Glacier spawned smaller ice islands in 2001 (34 square miles) and in 2008 (10 square miles). In 2005, the Ayles Ice Shelf, about 60 miles to the west of Petermann Glacier, disintegrated and became a 34 square-mile ice island. The August 2010 Petermann Glacier calving event created the largest iceberg observed in the Arctic since 1962, when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf on the north coast of Canada's Ellesmere Island calved off a massive 230 square mile chunk. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf also calved off a huge 21 square mile ice island a few days after the August 2010 Petermann Glacier calving event. According to an article in livescience.com, "Driftwood and narwhal remains found along the Ellesmere coast have radiocarbon dates from roughly 3,000 to 6,800 years ago, implying that the ice has been intact since those remains were deposited." All of the these calving events are evidence that the ice sheets in the Arctic are responding as one would expect to significantly warmer temperatures.
Warmer ocean temperatures cause significant melting of Greenland's glaciers
At a talk last December at the world's largest conference on climate change, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, glacier expert Eric Rignot of UC-Irvine implicated ocean warming as a key reason for the calving of the Petermann Glacier's ice island. The ocean waters near the glacier have warmed by 1 - 2°C over the past three years, he said, and all of the periphery of Greenland has seen ocean heat increases in recent years, with the result that 20 - 80% of all the mass lost by Greenland's glaciers in recent years could be attributed to melting of the glaciers by warmer waters attacking them from beneath. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, and far warmer than the previous record of 1.5°C above average set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s. A study earlier this year published in the journal Science (Spielhagen et al., 2011) found that ocean temperatures on the east side of Greenland are now at their warmest levels in at least 2,000 years. The researchers studied a sediment core containing fossil remains of planktic foraminifers, which vary as a function of water temperature. The study noted that not only have the waters flowing northward on the east side of Greenland warmed significantly, the volume of water flowing north has also increased, resulting in a large transport of heat into the Arctic. "Such an increased heat input has far-reaching consequences," they wrote.
Figure 2. Departure of sea surface temperature from average for 2010 from the NOAA Daily Optimum Interpolation SST Anomaly data set for October 2010. Areas colored red are warmer than the 1971-2000 average, areas colored blue are cooler than that average. A large region of record warm water temperatures extended along the west coast of Greenland, leading to record warm air temperatures and record melting along the western portion of Greenland in 2010. Ocean temperatures along the southwest coast of Greenland (60N to 70N, 60W to 50W) computed from the UK Hadley Center data set during 2010 were 2.9°C (5.2°F) above average--a truly remarkable anomaly, surpassing the previous record of 1.5°C set in 2003. Sea surface temperature records for Greenland began in the 1920s. Image credit: NOAA Visualization Lab.
Record warmth and melting in Greenland during 2010
Greenland's climate in 2010 was marked by record-setting high air temperatures, the greatest ice loss by melting since accurate records began in 1958, and the greatest mass loss of ocean-terminating glaciers on record. That was the conclusion of the 2010 Arctic Report Card, a collaborative effort between NOAA and European Arctic experts that comes out each year. Was 2010 the warmest year in Greenland's history? That is difficult to judge. We know it was also very warm in the late 1920s and 1930s in Greenland, but we only have two stations, Godtahab Nuuk and Angmagssalik, with weather records that go back that far (Figure 3.) Godtahab Nuuk set a record high in 2010, but temperatures at Angmagssalik in 2010 were similar to what was observed during several years in the 1920s and 1930s. Marco Tedesco of the City College of New York's Cryosphere Processes Laboratory remarked that last year's record warmth and melting in Greenland began when an unusually early spring warm spell reduced and "aged" the snow on the surface of the ice sheet, so that the snow became less reflective, allowing it to absorb more heat from the sun. This accelerated snow melt even further, exposing the bare ice, which is less reflective than snow and absorbs more heat. This feedback loop extended Greenland's record melting season well into the fall.
Figure 3. Historic temperatures in Greenland for the six stations with at least 50 years of data, as archived by NASA. Three of the six stations set record highs in 2010. However, only two of the six stations (Godtahab Nuuk and Angmagssalik) have data going back beyond the 1930s, which was a period of warmth in Greenland similar to the warmth of the current decade. Godtahab Nuuk set a record high in 2010, but 2003 still ranks as Angmagssalik's hottest year on record.
Figure 4. The 2010 summer melt season was lasted more than 40 days longer (purple colors) than the mean melt season from 1979 - 2007. Image credit: Arctic Report Card.
Why Greenland matters: sea level rise
The major concern with a warming climate in Greenland is melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which currently contributes about 25% of the observed 3 mm/year (1.2 inches per decade) global rise in sea level. Higher sea levels mean increased storm surge inundation, coastal erosion, loss of low-lying land areas, and salt water contamination of underground drinking water supplies. Greenland ice mass loss is accelerating over the long term, according to independent estimates using three different techniques (Figure 5), with more mass being lost each year than the previous year. According to Rignot et al., 2011, ice mass loss is also accelerating in Antarctica, and "the magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level rise in the 21st century." As I discussed in a 2009 blog post, How much will global sea level rise this century?, the IPCC in 2007 estimated that global sea level would rise 0.6 - 1.9 feet by 2100, but several studies since then predict a higher range of 1.6 - 6.6 feet.
During the warm period 125,000 years ago, before the most recent ice age, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted. This melting plus the melting of other smaller Arctic ice fields is thought to have caused 7.2 - 11.2 feet (2.2 - 3.4 meters) of the 13 - 20 foot (4 - 6 meter) sea level rise observed during that period. Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3°C by 2100, to levels similar to 125,000 years ago. If this level of warming occurs, we can expect sea levels to rise 13 - 20 feet several centuries from now. There's enough water locked away in the ice sheet to raise sea level to rise 23 feet (7 meters), should the entire Greenland ice sheet melt.
Figure 5. Loss of mass from Greenland's ice sheet in gigatons per year from 1992 through 2009, as computed from satellite gravity measurements from the GRACE satellites (red line) and from a mass balance method. The mass balance method computes the amount of snow on the surface, the amount of ice mass lost to wind and melt, and the amount of ice lost computed from glacier velocity and ice thickness. Adding together these terms gives the total amount of ice lost or gained over the ice sheet. The acceleration is given in gigatons per year squared. Another paper by Zwally et al. (2011) used a third method, laser satellite altimetry, to determine Greenland mass loss. Between 2003 to 2007, the ice sheet lost 171 gigatons of mass per year. Between 1992 to 2002, Greenland was only losing only 7 gigatons per year. Image credit: Rignot et al., 2011, Geophysical Research Letters.
References
Rignot, E., et al., 2011: Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, in press, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583.
Spielhagen, et al., 2011, Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water, Science 28 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6016 pp. 450-453 DOI: 10.1126/science.1197397
Zwally, J., et al., 2011, Greenland ice sheet mass balance: distribution of increased mass loss with climate warming; 2003 - 07 versus 19922 - 2002, Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 57, No. 201, 2011.
Wunderground's climate change section has a Greenland web page with detailed information and references.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 — Blog Index
Our weather is beautiful, Gro. Figured it was time to get in my semi-annual hello to you and yours. I'll check you again in September!
Hello, plywoodstate!
Doing good. Same for ya'll I hope. I zip in and out here in between acts of the Punch and Judy Show. Can't stay away!
Everyone I know always talks about how they hate that, like today, we were supposed to have high coverage of showers and thunderstorms, some severe today, but its more bright and sunny than yesterday.
I gotta say, I didn't see it coming either. However, I'm not afraid to say I was wrong, I thought we were going to get a lot of rain today, but all the convection just completely collapsed last night suddenly, and never recovered. Based on my analysis, it appears the short wave seemed to just rapidly fizzle, causing complete collapse of the convective system.
Go figure, it really sucks though, cause we need a good rain. Local METs were saying for days this would be our chance to help improve the dry conditions, and models were supporting this.
At least come back in August, should be an early season.
Hi Grothar!
I think I got snippy with you once. I've read about a thousand of your posts since then and have developed a lot of respect for you. I hope you don't hold a grudge. I know I don't. Thanks.
IronHore Update..
Central Florida's first major blaze of the year that consumed nearly 17,000 acres of largely-uninhabited land in Brevard and Volusia counties is completely contained but far from controlled, officials said Sunday.
Light fire activity and humid conditions this weekend gave firefighters a chance to rein in the blaze as they built nearly 58 miles of 30-foot wide fire lines around the perimeter, said Volusia County Fire Services spokeswoman Michelle Coats.
Keeper~ The longer the about to be loop eddie holds on the warmer it will get.
Jed~ I never got excited about it. That had fall apart all over it..
I'll be here. Have not missed a season since 2006.
Quoting paratomic:
... This issue has become political and is no longer about facts. ...
Mixing politics and science is sure way to foster cognitive dissonance, just like mixing religion and science. In fact, politics is more religion than fact (at least these days) where many believe in their "side" so blindly that they will do almost anything to justify their sides statements and positions instead of stepping back and logically analyzing the situation.
What we are seeing with climate change or any science/data/facts that challenge people's beliefs and perceptions is what happens when the the unstoppable force of faith and fantasy collide with the immovable wall of hard facts and cold reality. This usually results is the five stages of grief; denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. This has happened multiple times, with fewer examples more illustrative than when science challenges popular religious views.
Of course, not everyone will reach the acceptance stage. In fact, a fair number just stop at the anger phase and stay there.
Well said, Xyrus.
Jedkins....So many times those strong lines of storms and enter Florida and fizzle out... Had some rain early in the morning here in Palm Beach county, but not associated with that line. I hear ya about the TV weathermen or weatherwomen... Out of sight out of mind. I was hoping for a drenching all over Florida to keep the wildfires at bay.
A few years back, a Denver met predicted 5% chance of snow. The next day's newscast showed him shoveling that 5% off his driveway. Some do admit it!
No, I am too old to hold grudges. I get a kick out of some of your posts. I even replied on a few of them.
did someone ask for a u tube vid
Hello, all wubloggers from near and far.
I'm fresh out of 80s youtubes.
:)
Really just stopping in to advertise my wublog. You might find something of interest there.
National Severe Weather Workshop report . I attended the session held Friday, March 4.
Of course, there's much more I could share about what I learned. Maybe will later.
Hi, bf!
lol depends on what part of Florida, they definitely don't always fizzle out up here. We usually DO get them up here.
But yeah so true, the NWS always comments on how things didn't turn out as expected, and how it may have puzzled them...
However it seems on TV they don't want to admit they got it wrong. Maybe there is some stupid thing about broadcasting that its "unprofessional" for forecasters to admit they messed up. Of course, that's just an assumption, I don't really know.
What is actually unprofessional is dishonesty, that I can assure.
That is true haha, I just mean in a general sense that seems to be the case though.
i watch for big events
i get a rush from it knowing iam one step ahead of it
or so i think
and i like it when iam wrong that means it was not bad
And? Your expecting a sub-tropical storm to develop in that level of shear? This stuff just doesn't happen when there is the 'right' SSTs, all the conditions need to be perfect.
Hi, bl!
Just commented to you in my blog... with more Severe Workshop news and a link to Roger Edwards' paper on Tropical Cyclone Tornadoes. TCTORS as they're known in the biz.
Have a good Sunday, One and All.
Do we invest in prevention or preparation? I believe that the correct answer is preparation.
Prevention/reversal is the current mantra. We have to stop climate change or else. Say the US, Europe, and the other 1st world nations fully implement climate change prevention/reversal policies. What about the rest of the world? What about Brazil, Russia, India, and China? Russia I could see coming along, along with Brazil. India and China though? Not a chance.
India and China are both experiencing tremendous economic growth and a transformation from bicycle and train riding societies into car driving societies. China's CO2 output has already outpaced the US and India is hot on their heels. To implement climate change prevention/reversal policies would be enormously costly and nigh-impossible to enforce in countries in which corruption is not just rampant, but endemic.
The chances of even partial implementation though, are low. Implementation would be so expensive that it would very likely cause economic collapse. Economic weakness equals military weakness. India is too paranoid (rightly so) over China (not to mention Pakistan), while China has too much of an inferiority complex to ever consider, much less implement, policy that originated outside China. Before India would come on board, we would first need to bring in China. China will never listen to diplomacy. And any attempts to press the matter non-diplomatically would be seen by China as nothing short of a declaration of war. And war with China would very quickly go nuclear.
With India and China rapidly growing economically and greenhouse emissions from them rising ever higher, effective global-warming prevention/reversal becomes effectively impossible. Therefore, I believe that the only rational course of action is climate-change preparation.
?
Don't feel bad; just because some can't understand what you wrote doesn't mean it's incoherent. ;-)
Now, I do agree that preparation is the key. A few weeks ago, Ricky Rood suggested that, since it was likely pointless from here on out to try to convince many unmoveable deniers (skeptics/denialists/whatever) of the overhwhelming science, those supporting AGWT should simply declare victory and move on to toward the next stage, which is preparing for the numerous ill effects of rapid warming by a) making sure ourselves, our families, and our friends, are prepared, and b) try to make money off of those who refuse to budge from their current stance no matter how much science is thrown their way. So, again, I agree that preparation is key.
Having said all that, I believe you're very wrong in your take on China. To suggest that the Chinese government is ignoring its own contribution to rising CO2 levels is simply incorrect. To be blunt, China has done more to combat climate change over the past decade than has the U.S. (though that is, admittedly, not saying much). Yes, China recently overtook the U.S. as the world's leader in CO2 emsissions--but given that they have roughly four times as many people as we do, one would expect them to be putting out more CO2. (FWIW, India's per capita CO2 output is 1.4 tonnes. China's is 6. In the U.S., it's a whoppping 17.) And China's leaders, for all their shortcomings, seem to understand that even their current rate of output is unsustainable, so they are working feverishly on expanding into clean energy. Last year, more than 1/3 of all new wind power installations in the world were in China. China has doubled its solar energy capacity in just the past two years. China is the world leader in hydropower. And so on.
In short, it's hugely unfair for those of us in the West to look at emerging powers like China and India and blame the rapid rise in CO2 on them. And it's foolish for us to throw our hands up as some are doing and say, "They don't care, so why should we?" Would that some of our elected leaders had the vision to follow China's lead.
On a related note, perhaps more volcanic eruptions like the one in Iceland last year might be a good thing CO2-wise: while the volcano emitted about 150,000 tonnes of CO2 each day at the peak of its activity, the cancellation of 60% of flights in and around the area saved 344,109 tonnes of CO2 per day, for a net savings of 206,465 tonnes per day. ;-)
It's true for a very specific set condition. In the short-term, local increases in SST do increase hurricane activity because the overall balance between the equator and the polar regions hasn't changed, but has become a bigger local gradient. In the longer term, the balance between equator and poles does change, and following AGW theory, the poles warm faster, reducing the Earth's thermal imbalance. This reduces the need for tropical cyclones in the tropics to equalize this difference.
Larger air conditioners for the houses and large sponges dropped in the ocean to absorb the excess water.
ScienceDaily (Mar. 6, 2011) — Researchers at Chalmers in Sweden have shown that a surface emitting laser -- a cheaper and more energy-efficient type of laser for fiber optics than conventional lasers -- can deliver error-free data at a record speed of 40 Gbit/s. The break-through could lead to faster Internet traffic, computers and mobile phones....
Link
levi i need a bit of explanation on the Bermuda high please?
A dyke at the edge of the Lusi mud volcano is seen from the air in May 2008.
Though the worst of the mud eruptions may be over in 26 years, the volcano's mud will likely flow at lower rates for thousands of years, according to the new study. Published March 4, 2011
Link
ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2011) — The impact that local deforestation might have on the snowcap and glaciers atop Mount Kilimanjaro are being calculated at The University of Alabama in Huntsville using regional climate models and data from NASA satellites.
The first piece of that research, which looked only at the month of July, found that deforestation is changing weather patterns around the mountain but not (at least in July) at the peak, according to Dr. Udaysankar Nair, a research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.
Early results from this work, which is funded through NASA's Earth Science Directorate, were published Feb. 15 in the Journal of Geophysical Research........
Link
200 homes flooded up to 4 foot deep in Algeciras, Spain today Sunday at noon, massive hail storms the likes of which had never been seen according to city residents, reports on Spanish national TV 'TVE' More storms forecast for tomorrow.Hail is very rare in this area.
Anomalously warm SSTs relative to the rest of the tropics will always produce more tropical activity in that basin, but we're talking about the global system here. The only reason tropical cyclones exist is because there is enough thermal imbalance to generate rising air in the tropics on a large scale. Anomalies are based on the relative norm. If "warm anomalies" become the norm, then they will not be anomalies anymore, and you cannot describe them as such.
The thing about AGW theory is that if we were to take it to its extreme end, the Earth would be near thermal equilibrium at the surface and consist of a giant inversion layer through the mid-troposphere, shutting off all tropical convection, along with most weather as we know it. The process is simple.
There is also the small matter of global ACE showing no signs of inreasing as global temperature goes up. It is at a 30-year low right now.
What about it?
I said the same thing you did, only I used a question mark. The problem was, not that it was incoherent, but that I understood the statement too well. Thanks for putting into words where I only used a symbol. (Funny, but you spell 'tonnes' the way I do. LOL)
How high is it?
Viewing: 751 - 801
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 — Blog Index