Melting of Greenland ice sheet set new record in 2010, as some areas in the second largest ice body in the world experienced melting for longer duration last year, says a research conducted by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and City College of New York.
Covering 80 percent of the surface of Greenland country, the ice sheet is prone to effects of global warming. Melting of this ice sheet is expected to significantly rise the sea levels in the coming decades.
“Bare ice is much darker than snow and absorbs more solar radiation,” said Dr Tedesco. “This means the old ice is warming, melting, and running off into the sea.”
Meanwhile, sea level has dropped 20 mm since the start of the “record melt year” and is lower than it was in 2006.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg
Silly Boy!
That is because the warmer atmosphere holds more water. Of course the sea level will drop for a few years as the globe gets really warm. There is more water in the air, soon we will all need gills just to be able to extract the oxygen from the great amount of water in the atmosphere. You will need paddles on your bike just to move through the atmosphere it will be sooooo thick! Mark my words it will happen any day now. Best guess is two days after the day after tomorrow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yop62wQH498
I think it has more to do with volume contraction of a cooler ocean (la Nina and PDO shift) – a relatively constant rh could not account for the water evaporated into the air over the period; air temperatures have not increased that much.
Aren’t there some laws that prohibit known terrorist associations (such as WWF) from working with institutions that receive public money (like CCNY)?
This concept of “Law” as something fixed and unyielding is giving way to a more “enlightened” state as a sorta kinda guideline, now that we’re in this postmodern terrorist lovin’, freedom hatin’, birth certificate-less era.
Spot on the money! We can’t have “Laws” anymore. It just won’t do. I mean laws need us to stick to them. Laws define things and if it can’t be defined by a law that makes it impossible. AGW CC? Now they are so complex that only a clever warmist can fully understand and it is way too complex for the likes of us so maybe they could be covered by a scientific “law” but a very, very special law.
The Definitely Not/Definitely Is Law states that AGW or CC can be defined in terms acceptable to the warmist case no matter how ludicrous it may seem. Because… because… they are always right.
Now that must be worth a Nobel Prize!!!!
WWF research – well we really had better believe them.
By the way what is bare ice?
Ice without clothes on!!!!! Silly Question!
The situation in the Sea of Okhotsk is getting worse by the hour.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/stormy-weather.html
The study can be found here.
http://134.74.46.131/wordpress/?page_id=236
This graphic is interesting as it indicates that there was lots of ice gain up to 1992. I didn’t realize man made global warming didn’t take effect until after 1992. It’s also clear that CO2 took a vacation in 2009 when the ice was normal.
http://134.74.46.131/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/trend_greenland_20101.jpg
ACC takes vacations almost as much as Obama, or even Bush, if you believe Steve.
Now you really are being ludicrous, Tony.
When warming events happen it is due to global warming.
When the opposite happens – well it is just one of those things.
I think your juggling is more serious than your arguments.
Paul, that’s because he probably hasn’t been indoctrinated into the new warmcold AGW yet, give him a bit of time. HAHA!
? Tony, where do you live
Paul,
well my tag line IS Serious juggling and comedy, so I hope so.
Nor have I been indoctrinated into the everything disproves global warming and all the scientists who believe it are idiots or part of a messianic cult or will do anything to stay on the GW gravytrain, but it is NOT a fraudulent conspiracy that Steve and Mike favor
Dave
Vermont
How’s weather treating you
I’m from upstate NY, our degree days are 130 ahead of last years for the same time period, which means, I’m burning an extra 1 gallon of fuel oil a day @ 3.45 a gallon Hello!! The degree Days in our area have been creeping up for the last 3-4 years
Dave,
It has been about normal for this time of year. We did have colder than normal a week ago, and this week it is supposed to get really cold at night. -18, the first time I have seen that in 10 years.
Oil bill is bad, but not as bad as when I had to pay $4/gallon!!
I paid that too, just 3 yrs ago!! supply and demand, -14 this weekend
I told the better half, looking at a COAL furnace, 1 ton of bagged coal @ $272 equals 185 gls of fuel oil @ 3.45 a gl BTU wise, Do the math
Tony that sounds wishy washy now doesn’t it!
lol, IDK about oil, but at -18 I sure would want something to fuel a fire with!
Covering 80 percent of the surface of Greenland country, the ice sheet is prone to effects of global warming. Melting of this ice sheet is expected to significantly rise the sea levels in the coming decades.
This has to been one of the most ill constructed statements I have ever read. “… of Greenland country,…” is not Greenland a country? “… to significantly rise…” should not that be “raise”. And why is there a plural “levels”? I thought it was level.
Actually greenland is part of Denmark. though there are efforts to change that.
Knew some amazingly beautiful half danish half Greenlandish woman, when i lived the
Bet you did not see them in bikinis though!!
LOL
Paul
and could you count all their teeth on one hand?
OK, serious question for anyone.
Why do they use linear regression on a process that is unlikely to be constant for the period ?
Why are they blaming global warming when the ice looks like this:
http://134.74.46.131/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/crack4.jpg
That’s because they are measuring the surface of the seas…
..if you measure way down deep, where the heat is, you’ll see expansion
Tony Duncan says:
January 21, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Actually greenland is part of Denmark. though there are efforts to change that.
Having lived in Iceland I know Greenland is “part” by Denmark, but that was not the point. Using Greenland followed by the word country is redundant.
my mistake.
Anybody who pays the least bit attention to WWF dog crap needs psychotherapy or psycho-pharmacology or is beyond anything those can help.
Here is the version from AFP as it appeared in the Australian.
No mention of WWF sponsorship anywhere!
And this:
“Based on computer models, Dr Tedesco estimated that runoff in 2010 was 530 gigatonnes, or billions of tonnes, compared to an average of 274 gigatonnes for the period 1958-2009, and 285 gigatonnes for 1979-2009.”
In other words it is an another WWF sponsored modelling result made up to look like a neutral scientific finding in the MSM. Why is it the public are getting cynical?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/103550/20110121/global-warming-climate-change-greenland-ice-sheet-world-wide-fund-for-nature-wwf-arctic.htm#
Here it does
You will note that it fails to mention that it is a modelling study, whereas the AFP piece fails to mention WWF.
The mainstream media must be getting wise to this, so they don’t put the two together in the same article.
Now if a certain large investment bank put out an article saying that it modelled subprime derivatives and said their study found these were safe high yielding AAA investments would anyone believe them?
To raise the sea level by just 1 metre you need 361,132.4 cubic kilometres of water.
Multiply that by 1.1 to get cubic kilometres of ice, but that ice/water has the same mass.
1 cubic kilometre of water is 1,000 by 1,000 by 1,000 by 1,000 kilograms.
Go on, you do the rest. Sea level is not going to rise much any time soon.
“Based on computer models, Dr Tedesco estimated that runoff in 2010 was 530 gigatonnes, or billions of tonnes, compared to an average of 274 gigatonnes for the period 1958-2009, and 285 gigatonnes for 1979-2009.”
I couldn’t help it. All that runoff claimed by Dr Tedesco has raised the sea level by a fraction over 41 millimetres.
Even if they have an accurate measurement of ice loss now, which they don’t, how can they compare it with previous years when they had virtually no idea at all.
The whole point is that ice sheet loss figures by themselves are completely irrelevant. You also need ice sheet accumulation numbers to put them into any sort of context.
Never going to get them from an organisation as one-eyed as the WWF.