Scientists are getting a better handle on how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea. Old models that used Antarctica as a baseline were way off the mark.

In this aerial view, icebergs and meltwater are seen in front of the retreating Russell Glacier on Sept. 8, 2021 near Kangerlussuaq, Greenland.

Greenland’s glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords.

The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in GGreenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement.

“For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts,” lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. “But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts.”

The researchers published their findings in September in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Researchers already knew their Antarctica-based understanding of Arctic glaciers was not a perfect match. But it’s hard to get close to the edges of Greenland’s glaciers, because they’re situated at the ends of fjords — long, narrow inlets of seawater flanked by high cliffs — where warm water undercuts the ice. This leads to dramatic calving events where chunks of ice the size of buildings crumble into the water with little warning, creating mini-tsunamis, according to the researchers.

Researchers led by physical oceanographer Rebecca Jackson of Rutgers University have been using robotic boats to get close to these dangerous ice cliffs and take measurements. They’ve done this at Alaska’s LeConte Glacier as well as Greenland’s Kangerlussuup Sermia. (An upcoming mission led by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin will send robotic subs to the faces of three west Greenland glaciers.) Jackon’s measurements suggest that the Antarctica-based models massively underestimate Arctic glacial melt. LeConte, for example, is disappearing 100 times faster than models predicted.

The mixture of cold fresh water from the glaciers and warmer seawater drives ocean circulation near the glaciers and farther out in the ocean, meaning the melt has far-reaching implications. The Greenland ice sheet is also important for sea-level rise; Greenland ice holds enough water to raise sea levels by 20 feet (6 meters).

The new model uses the latest data from near-glacial missions along with a more realistic understanding of how the steep, cliff-like faces of the glaciers impact ice loss. The results are consistent with Jackson’s findings, showing 100 times more melt than the old models predicted.

“Ocean climate model results are highly relevant for humankind to predict trends associated with climate change, so you really want to get them right,” Schulz said. “This was a very important step for making climate models better.”

https://www.livescience.com/greenland-glacier-melt-model

it’s all rather disappointing isn’t it?

they need to start making fake platforms for polar bears to be able to go out fishing for their food without drowning even if small ones

i was trying to search some of the archived sssf abc old forum threads on this because I posted a few threads on this iirc at that point scientists were suggesting the ice sheets melting into the oceans were being replaced at a similar rate … I found that difficult to believe.

monkey skipper said:

it’s all rather disappointing isn’t it?

they need to start making fake platforms for polar bears to be able to go out fishing for their food without drowning even if small ones

I hear they are going to start making big polluters pay.

monkey skipper said:

i was trying to search some of the archived sssf abc old forum threads on this because I posted a few threads on this iirc at that point scientists were suggesting the ice sheets melting into the oceans were being replaced at a similar rate … I found that difficult to believe.

I believe some still do, including a couple of current members.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

it’s all rather disappointing isn’t it?

they need to start making fake platforms for polar bears to be able to go out fishing for their food without drowning even if small ones

I hear they are going to start making big polluters pay.

paying doesn’t reverse the damage though

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

it’s all rather disappointing isn’t it?

they need to start making fake platforms for polar bears to be able to go out fishing for their food without drowning even if small ones

I hear they are going to start making big polluters pay.

paying doesn’t reverse the damage though

No. It will take generations to get anywhere near saving what’s left.

Well at least my hype detector is working for this one.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

I hear they are going to start making big polluters pay.

paying doesn’t reverse the damage though

No. It will take generations to get anywhere near saving what’s left.

It’s so heartbreaking. I was talking to some depresssed marine biologists and some of their species are found in parts of the oceans where they haven’t previously had fossils discovered. So the balance has been upset significantly. There was an article about it in the New Scientist. It was fascinating.

ms spock said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

paying doesn’t reverse the damage though

No. It will take generations to get anywhere near saving what’s left.

It’s so heartbreaking. I was talking to some depresssed marine biologists and some of their species are found in parts of the oceans where they haven’t previously had fossils discovered. So the balance has been upset significantly. There was an article about it in the New Scientist. It was fascinating.

imo as a collective we need to provide some artificial havens (slow down the damage)for sea life affected whilst the big wigs get their shoot together

monkey skipper said:

ms spock said:

roughbarked said:

No. It will take generations to get anywhere near saving what’s left.

It’s so heartbreaking. I was talking to some depresssed marine biologists and some of their species are found in parts of the oceans where they haven’t previously had fossils discovered. So the balance has been upset significantly. There was an article about it in the New Scientist. It was fascinating.

imo as a collective we need to provide some artificial havens (slow down the damage)for sea life affected whilst the big wigs get their shoot together

The problem being, it costs money and people want to make a profit on their investments.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

ms spock said:

It’s so heartbreaking. I was talking to some depresssed marine biologists and some of their species are found in parts of the oceans where they haven’t previously had fossils discovered. So the balance has been upset significantly. There was an article about it in the New Scientist. It was fascinating.

imo as a collective we need to provide some artificial havens (slow down the damage)for sea life affected whilst the big wigs get their shoot together

The problem being, it costs money and people want to make a profit on their investments.

It is going to have to take some very clever government incentives to con them into paying for the regeneration of what is being destroyed by their actions. The bulk of those costs will be pushed completely on to the consumer otherwise.

monkey skipper said:

ms spock said:

roughbarked said:

No. It will take generations to get anywhere near saving what’s left.

It’s so heartbreaking. I was talking to some depresssed marine biologists and some of their species are found in parts of the oceans where they haven’t previously had fossils discovered. So the balance has been upset significantly. There was an article about it in the New Scientist. It was fascinating.

imo as a collective we need to provide some artificial havens (slow down the damage)for sea life affected whilst the big wigs get their shoot together

Absolutely Monkey Skipper! It really needs to be happening NOW.

The polar bears are having to swim farther and farther away and are sometimes getting shot when they arrive at a place they are not known to have been. Folks can stay away for a few days.

This has been happening for awhile. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

imo as a collective we need to provide some artificial havens (slow down the damage)for sea life affected whilst the big wigs get their shoot together

The problem being, it costs money and people want to make a profit on their investments.

It is going to have to take some very clever government incentives to con them into paying for the regeneration of what is being destroyed by their actions. The bulk of those costs will be pushed completely on to the consumer otherwise.

It already has, unfortunately the third world is paying for the first world’s indulgences.

ms spock said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

The problem being, it costs money and people want to make a profit on their investments.

It is going to have to take some very clever government incentives to con them into paying for the regeneration of what is being destroyed by their actions. The bulk of those costs will be pushed completely on to the consumer otherwise.

It already has, unfortunately the third world is paying for the first world’s indulgences.

It has been happening for far too long now.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

ms spock said:

It’s so heartbreaking. I was talking to some depresssed marine biologists and some of their species are found in parts of the oceans where they haven’t previously had fossils discovered. So the balance has been upset significantly. There was an article about it in the New Scientist. It was fascinating.

imo as a collective we need to provide some artificial havens (slow down the damage)for sea life affected whilst the big wigs get their shoot together

The problem being, it costs money and people want to make a profit on their investments.

i am of the view we have enough smart people that can be innovative enough to find some cost-effective ways to make some minor but very helpful support changes. like PhD assignments that include some of the challenges to address and overcome. dv said the other day like lowering co2 emissions (well yes as we’re all aware) but the example of tables built to grow coral on in the great barrier reef is a good example of how a multitude of things will bring about significant change because in fairness if humans caused this then doing something to off sett the damage is a reasonable thing and my guess part of new job creation for things people want to see happening

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

imo as a collective we need to provide some artificial havens (slow down the damage)for sea life affected whilst the big wigs get their shoot together

The problem being, it costs money and people want to make a profit on their investments.

i am of the view we have enough smart people that can be innovative enough to find some cost-effective ways to make some minor but very helpful support changes. like PhD assignments that include some of the challenges to address and overcome. dv said the other day like lowering co2 emissions (well yes as we’re all aware) but the example of tables built to grow coral on in the great barrier reef is a good example of how a multitude of things will bring about significant change because in fairness if humans caused this then doing something to off sett the damage is a reasonable thing and my guess part of new job creation for things people want to see happening

Oh yes. We are smart enough. We do have to get cracking though.

roughbarked said:

ms spock said:

roughbarked said:

It is going to have to take some very clever government incentives to con them into paying for the regeneration of what is being destroyed by their actions. The bulk of those costs will be pushed completely on to the consumer otherwise.

It already has, unfortunately the third world is paying for the first world’s indulgences.

It has been happening for far too long now.

You are so right!

Did you see that scientist that wrote about it in the 1880s?

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

imo as a collective we need to provide some artificial havens (slow down the damage)for sea life affected whilst the big wigs get their shoot together

The problem being, it costs money and people want to make a profit on their investments.

i am of the view we have enough smart people that can be innovative enough to find some cost-effective ways to make some minor but very helpful support changes. like PhD assignments that include some of the challenges to address and overcome. dv said the other day like lowering co2 emissions (well yes as we’re all aware) but the example of tables built to grow coral on in the great barrier reef is a good example of how a multitude of things will bring about significant change because in fairness if humans caused this then doing something to off sett the damage is a reasonable thing and my guess part of new job creation for things people want to see happening

I hope so!

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

The problem being, it costs money and people want to make a profit on their investments.

i am of the view we have enough smart people that can be innovative enough to find some cost-effective ways to make some minor but very helpful support changes. like PhD assignments that include some of the challenges to address and overcome. dv said the other day like lowering co2 emissions (well yes as we’re all aware) but the example of tables built to grow coral on in the great barrier reef is a good example of how a multitude of things will bring about significant change because in fairness if humans caused this then doing something to off sett the damage is a reasonable thing and my guess part of new job creation for things people want to see happening

Oh yes. We are smart enough. We do have to get cracking though.

phd students are a good start because it is a task they will need to complete and might link to funding after the fact

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

i am of the view we have enough smart people that can be innovative enough to find some cost-effective ways to make some minor but very helpful support changes. like PhD assignments that include some of the challenges to address and overcome. dv said the other day like lowering co2 emissions (well yes as we’re all aware) but the example of tables built to grow coral on in the great barrier reef is a good example of how a multitude of things will bring about significant change because in fairness if humans caused this then doing something to off sett the damage is a reasonable thing and my guess part of new job creation for things people want to see happening

Oh yes. We are smart enough. We do have to get cracking though.

phd students are a good start because it is a task they will need to complete and might link to funding after the fact

We are going to need more than students. Yes, studies are all well and good but we already have done lots of studies but haven’t changed much of the things that should have been changed already. Practical solutions also require hands as well as minds. There’s a lot to be done. We are simply not doing it fast enough.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

Oh yes. We are smart enough. We do have to get cracking though.

phd students are a good start because it is a task they will need to complete and might link to funding after the fact

We are going to need more than students. Yes, studies are all well and good but we already have done lots of studies but haven’t changed much of the things that should have been changed already. Practical solutions also require hands as well as minds. There’s a lot to be done. We are simply not doing it fast enough.

everything starts with a thought.

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

phd students are a good start because it is a task they will need to complete and might link to funding after the fact

We are going to need more than students. Yes, studies are all well and good but we already have done lots of studies but haven’t changed much of the things that should have been changed already. Practical solutions also require hands as well as minds. There’s a lot to be done. We are simply not doing it fast enough.

everything starts with a thought.

and stalls when someone asks how much will that cost?

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

We are going to need more than students. Yes, studies are all well and good but we already have done lots of studies but haven’t changed much of the things that should have been changed already. Practical solutions also require hands as well as minds. There’s a lot to be done. We are simply not doing it fast enough.

everything starts with a thought.

and stalls when someone asks how much will that cost?

well you don’t know that is true yet

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

everything starts with a thought.

and stalls when someone asks how much will that cost?

well you don’t know that is true yet

I’ve just seen so much of it.

United Nations: CLIMATE ACTION

Ogmog said:

United Nations: CLIMATE ACTION

I agree 100% with the above, it being logical and sensible and the most obvious thing to do. However, when you have political parties in this country, let alone elsewhere, thinking we must continue burning coal and gas to survive and then you have individuals that should know the facts but think global warming is only a green conspiracy. How is substantial change possible?

My own view is we must be firmer and demand change, the first being a powerful scientific committee that has the power to overrule the politicians to ensure urgent and important measures are not ignored for the sake of corrupted political ideology. This should also be the aim of ALL countries if we are to have a very slim chance of succeeding. So how possible is that? He asks as he jumps off the cliff.

PermeateFree said:

Ogmog said:

United Nations: CLIMATE ACTION

I agree 100% with the above, it being logical and sensible and the most obvious thing to do. However, when you have political parties in this country, let alone elsewhere, thinking we must continue burning coal and gas to survive and then you have individuals that should know the facts but think global warming is only a green conspiracy. How is substantial change possible?

My own view is we must be firmer and demand change, the first being a powerful scientific committee that has the power to overrule the politicians to ensure urgent and important measures are not ignored for the sake of corrupted political ideology. This should also be the aim of ALL countries if we are to have a very slim chance of succeeding. So how possible is that? He asks as he jumps off the cliff.

Sure, get rid of coal as soon as possible, but I cannot see a way forward without gas being a long term transition energy source.

PermeateFree said:

Ogmog said:

United Nations: CLIMATE ACTION

I agree 100% with the above, it being logical and sensible and the most obvious thing to do. However, when you have political parties in this country, let alone elsewhere, thinking we must continue burning coal and gas to survive and then you have individuals that should know the facts but think global warming is only a green conspiracy. How is substantial change possible?

My own view is we must be firmer and demand change, the first being a powerful scientific committee that has the power to overrule the politicians to ensure urgent and important measures are not ignored for the sake of corrupted political ideology. This should also be the aim of ALL countries if we are to have a very slim chance of succeeding. So how possible is that? He asks as he jumps off the cliff.

Boot out Murdoch. Bring home Assange.
j

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Ogmog said:

United Nations: CLIMATE ACTION

I agree 100% with the above, it being logical and sensible and the most obvious thing to do. However, when you have political parties in this country, let alone elsewhere, thinking we must continue burning coal and gas to survive and then you have individuals that should know the facts but think global warming is only a green conspiracy. How is substantial change possible?

My own view is we must be firmer and demand change, the first being a powerful scientific committee that has the power to overrule the politicians to ensure urgent and important measures are not ignored for the sake of corrupted political ideology. This should also be the aim of ALL countries if we are to have a very slim chance of succeeding. So how possible is that? He asks as he jumps off the cliff.

Sure, get rid of coal as soon as possible, but I cannot see a way forward without gas being a long term transition energy source.

Well there is considerable leakage of methane when they extract the gas, so perhaps we should acknowledge this fact and demand the situation be fixed, because methane is far worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas and current leakage is considerable.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

I agree 100% with the above, it being logical and sensible and the most obvious thing to do. However, when you have political parties in this country, let alone elsewhere, thinking we must continue burning coal and gas to survive and then you have individuals that should know the facts but think global warming is only a green conspiracy. How is substantial change possible?

My own view is we must be firmer and demand change, the first being a powerful scientific committee that has the power to overrule the politicians to ensure urgent and important measures are not ignored for the sake of corrupted political ideology. This should also be the aim of ALL countries if we are to have a very slim chance of succeeding. So how possible is that? He asks as he jumps off the cliff.

Sure, get rid of coal as soon as possible, but I cannot see a way forward without gas being a long term transition energy source.

Well there is considerable leakage of methane when they extract the gas, so perhaps we should acknowledge this fact and demand the situation be fixed, because methane is far worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas and current leakage is considerable.

the freakin’ Fracking Leakage sped up the warming temp
which melted the perma frost which is releasing more methane
than any amount of methane the greedy barstewards were releasing.
…not to mension the continental shelf methane hydrates gassing off… /-=

if possible, check out;
Our Planet’s Future: Combating Climate Change

btw, I agree about disposing of Rupert Murder
that toad-faced mofo has championed Climate Denial for FAR Too Long

Ogmog said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Sure, get rid of coal as soon as possible, but I cannot see a way forward without gas being a long term transition energy source.

Well there is considerable leakage of methane when they extract the gas, so perhaps we should acknowledge this fact and demand the situation be fixed, because methane is far worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas and current leakage is considerable.

the freakin’ Fracking Leakage sped up the warming temp
which melted the perma frost which is releasing more methane
than any amount of methane the greedy barstewards were releasing.
…not to mension the continental shelf methane hydrates gassing off… /-=

if possible, check out;
Our Planet’s Future: Combating Climate Change

btw, I agree about disposing of Rupert Murder
that toad-faced mofo has championed Climate Denial for FAR Too Long

During unconventional gas production, methane is released into the atmosphere from leakage and venting.
This methane leakage and venting is often referred to as fugitive emissions and occurs as a result of leakage from well heads, pipelines and infrastructure, and through deliberate venting and flaring of gas.

There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the scale of methane emissions from unconventional gas mining and fracking makes it potentially more polluting than coal when burnt for electricity.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas- 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide when its atmospheric warming impacts are considered over a 20-year time period. Therefore, methane leakage rates from gasfields of greater than 3-4% of production mean that gas-fired power will be more polluting than coal-fired power. However, actual measurements of methane leakage from gasfields in the US show a 5-10% leakage rate is more likely.

Unconventional gas producers claim that gas is a transition fuel- but it is a bridge to nowhere. More gasfields are simply not climate friendly given the amount of methane that is being vented and flared and are not needed given the plunging costs of alternatives in renewable energy and battery storage.

A 2016 report by the Melbourne Energy Institute (MEI) reviewing the latest research on methane emissions from unconventional gasfields in the US found that:

New measurements have recorded methane emissions of up to 17% of production, with an average of 10% across 5 gas basins far above the 3-4% needed to make gas climate neutral against coal.

-New top down methods of measuring methane emissions (ie from satellites, aircraft) have revealed far greater emissions then have been recorded using ‘bottom up’ ground-based sampling methods.

https://www.lockthegate.org.au/methane_leakage_and_venting#:~:text=During%20unconventional%20gas%20production%2C%20methane%20is%20released%20into,and%20through%20deliberate%20venting%20and%20flaring%20of%20gas.

PermeateFree said:

Ogmog said:

PermeateFree said:

Well there is considerable leakage of methane when they extract the gas, so perhaps we should acknowledge this fact and demand the situation be fixed, because methane is far worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas and current leakage is considerable.

the freakin’ Fracking Leakage sped up the warming temp
which melted the perma frost which is releasing more methane
than any amount of methane the greedy barstewards were releasing.
…not to mension the continental shelf methane hydrates gassing off… /-=

if possible, check out;
Our Planet’s Future: Combating Climate Change

btw, I agree about disposing of Rupert Murder
that toad-faced mofo has championed Climate Denial for FAR Too Long

During unconventional gas production, methane is released into the atmosphere from leakage and venting.
This methane leakage and venting is often referred to as fugitive emissions and occurs as a result of leakage from well heads, pipelines and infrastructure, and through deliberate venting and flaring of gas.

There is a growing body of evidence which suggests that the scale of methane emissions from unconventional gas mining and fracking makes it potentially more polluting than coal when burnt for electricity.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas- 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide when its atmospheric warming impacts are considered over a 20-year time period. Therefore, methane leakage rates from gasfields of greater than 3-4% of production mean that gas-fired power will be more polluting than coal-fired power. However, actual measurements of methane leakage from gasfields in the US show a 5-10% leakage rate is more likely.

Unconventional gas producers claim that gas is a transition fuel- but it is a bridge to nowhere. More gasfields are simply not climate friendly given the amount of methane that is being vented and flared and are not needed given the plunging costs of alternatives in renewable energy and battery storage.

A 2016 report by the Melbourne Energy Institute (MEI) reviewing the latest research on methane emissions from unconventional gasfields in the US found that:

New measurements have recorded methane emissions of up to 17% of production, with an average of 10% across 5 gas basins far above the 3-4% needed to make gas climate neutral against coal.

-New top down methods of measuring methane emissions (ie from satellites, aircraft) have revealed far greater emissions then have been recorded using ‘bottom up’ ground-based sampling methods.

https://www.lockthegate.org.au/methane_leakage_and_venting#:~:text=During%20unconventional%20gas%20production%2C%20methane%20is%20released%20into,and%20through%20deliberate%20venting%20and%20flaring%20of%20gas.

What they’re not being forthcoming about
is the amount that escapes from the fractures themselves.
In a swampy environment the mud fairly BUBBLES with escaping gas
cracking open cap rock indeed has some very unintentional consequences

https://climatecrocks.com/2022/12/26/clickbait-greenland-ice-headline-is-misleading/

Link

Bogsnorkler said:

https://climatecrocks.com/2022/12/26/clickbait-greenland-ice-headline-is-misleading/

Link

How dare you

Arts said:

Bogsnorkler said:

https://climatecrocks.com/2022/12/26/clickbait-greenland-ice-headline-is-misleading/

Link

How dare you

I dare because I want reality, or as near as dammit, whether it is good or bad.

Bogsnorkler said:

Arts said:

Bogsnorkler said:

https://climatecrocks.com/2022/12/26/clickbait-greenland-ice-headline-is-misleading/

Link

How dare you

I dare because I want reality, or as near as dammit, whether it is good or bad.

you’re a riot, Alice

Arts said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Arts said:

How dare you

I dare because I want reality, or as near as dammit, whether it is good or bad.

you’re a riot, Alice

you can call me AI.

Bogsnorkler said:

Arts said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I dare because I want reality, or as near as dammit, whether it is good or bad.

you’re a riot, Alice

you can call me AI.

aww, you getting soft in the middle

Bogsnorkler said:

https://climatecrocks.com/2022/12/26/clickbait-greenland-ice-headline-is-misleading/

Link

From the article:
>>Scientists are getting a better handle on how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea. Old models that used Antarctica as a baseline were way off the mark.

Greenland’s glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords.

The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in Greenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement.

“For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts,” lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. “But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts.”

The researchers published their findings in September in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.<<

From Stefan Rahmstorf
There are misleading headlines claiming „Greenland melting 100x faster“. But the study only concerns melt rates at vertical ice cliffs in contact with sea water. It has nothing to do with overall ice loss from Greenland, mostly via surface melt & calving.

Not sure who is being misleading?
The article states “how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea” that differs from what Stefan Rahmstorf is about. His criticism is not about the article, but his interpretation of the article, which seems to be the main problem.

Stefan Rahmstorf has a reputation of being unnecessarily aggressive about research and the researchers that cross what he considers as his domain.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

https://climatecrocks.com/2022/12/26/clickbait-greenland-ice-headline-is-misleading/

Link

From the article:
>>Scientists are getting a better handle on how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea. Old models that used Antarctica as a baseline were way off the mark.

Greenland’s glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords.

The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in Greenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement.

“For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts,” lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. “But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts.”

The researchers published their findings in September in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.<<

From Stefan Rahmstorf
There are misleading headlines claiming „Greenland melting 100x faster“. But the study only concerns melt rates at vertical ice cliffs in contact with sea water. It has nothing to do with overall ice loss from Greenland, mostly via surface melt & calving.

Not sure who is being misleading?
The article states “how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea” that differs from what Stefan Rahmstorf is about. His criticism is not about the article, but his interpretation of the article, which seems to be the main problem.

Stefan Rahmstorf has a reputation of being unnecessarily aggressive about research and the researchers that cross what he considers as his domain.

the article isn’t written by Stefan. Although he has some input as far as being quoted. I think the main problem is that the article title is misleading to lay people. It is a clickbait heading.

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

https://climatecrocks.com/2022/12/26/clickbait-greenland-ice-headline-is-misleading/

Link

From the article:
>>Scientists are getting a better handle on how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea. Old models that used Antarctica as a baseline were way off the mark.

Greenland’s glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords.

The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in Greenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement.

“For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts,” lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. “But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts.”

The researchers published their findings in September in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.<<

From Stefan Rahmstorf
There are misleading headlines claiming „Greenland melting 100x faster“. But the study only concerns melt rates at vertical ice cliffs in contact with sea water. It has nothing to do with overall ice loss from Greenland, mostly via surface melt & calving.

Not sure who is being misleading?
The article states “how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea” that differs from what Stefan Rahmstorf is about. His criticism is not about the article, but his interpretation of the article, which seems to be the main problem.

Stefan Rahmstorf has a reputation of being unnecessarily aggressive about research and the researchers that cross what he considers as his domain.

the article isn’t written by Stefan. Although he has some input as far as being quoted. I think the main problem is that the article title is misleading to lay people. It is a clickbait heading.

It is the article that is being criticised by Rahmstorf quite unfairly. But I suppose like Rahmstorf you should never trust the calculations of someone attached to a Computational Engineering and Sciences organisation.

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

From the article:
>>Scientists are getting a better handle on how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea. Old models that used Antarctica as a baseline were way off the mark.

Greenland’s glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords.

The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in Greenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement.

“For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts,” lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. “But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts.”

The researchers published their findings in September in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.<<

From Stefan Rahmstorf
There are misleading headlines claiming „Greenland melting 100x faster“. But the study only concerns melt rates at vertical ice cliffs in contact with sea water. It has nothing to do with overall ice loss from Greenland, mostly via surface melt & calving.

Not sure who is being misleading?
The article states “how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea” that differs from what Stefan Rahmstorf is about. His criticism is not about the article, but his interpretation of the article, which seems to be the main problem.

Stefan Rahmstorf has a reputation of being unnecessarily aggressive about research and the researchers that cross what he considers as his domain.

the article isn’t written by Stefan. Although he has some input as far as being quoted. I think the main problem is that the article title is misleading to lay people. It is a clickbait heading.

It is the article that is being criticised by Rahmstorf quite unfairly. But I suppose like Rahmstorf you should never trust the calculations of someone attached to a Computational Engineering and Sciences organisation.

exactly

PermeateFree said:

Bogsnorkler said:

PermeateFree said:

From the article:
>>Scientists are getting a better handle on how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea. Old models that used Antarctica as a baseline were way off the mark.

Greenland’s glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords.

The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in Greenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement.

“For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts,” lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. “But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland’s vertical glacier fronts.”

The researchers published their findings in September in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.<<

From Stefan Rahmstorf
There are misleading headlines claiming „Greenland melting 100x faster“. But the study only concerns melt rates at vertical ice cliffs in contact with sea water. It has nothing to do with overall ice loss from Greenland, mostly via surface melt & calving.

Not sure who is being misleading?
The article states “how fast Greenland’s ice is flowing out to sea” that differs from what Stefan Rahmstorf is about. His criticism is not about the article, but his interpretation of the article, which seems to be the main problem.

Stefan Rahmstorf has a reputation of being unnecessarily aggressive about research and the researchers that cross what he considers as his domain.

the article isn’t written by Stefan. Although he has some input as far as being quoted. I think the main problem is that the article title is misleading to lay people. It is a clickbait heading.

It is the article that is being criticised by Rahmstorf quite unfairly. But I suppose like Rahmstorf you should never trust the calculations of someone attached to a Computational Engineering and Sciences organisation.

it is the misleading headline that is the sticking point. The main article isn’t written by stefan but by peter sinclair.

Getting back to how can we fix it.
Well we have no hope while we are allowing people to throw thousands of rockets and burn tanks and fuel dumps and blow up gas pipes and….

LOL

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64240206

SCIENCE said:

LOL

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64240206

must be a good thing then

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-13/exxon-mobil-accurately-predicted-global-warming/101854578

thank fuck for burning

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

LOL

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64240206

must be a good thing then

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-13/exxon-mobil-accurately-predicted-global-warming/101854578

thank fuck for burning

But do you ever think about the needs of farmers in Greenland? No, you only think of yourself.