Glaciers will melt faster than ever and loss could be irreversible, warn scientists

Mar 07, 2013

Canada's Arctic Archipelago glaciers will melt faster than ever in the next few centuries. Research by European funded scientists has shown that 20 per cent of the Canadian Arctic glaciers may have disappeared by the end of this century which would amount to an additional sea level rise of 3.5cm

The results of the research will be published in this week, and the paper is now available online.

The researchers developed a climate model for the island group of the north of Canada in which they simulated the shrinking and growing of glaciers in this area.

The researchers show that the model correctly "predicted" the ice measured over the last ten years and then used the same model to project the effect of future on Canada's glaciers.

The most important result of the research is it shows the probable of the melting process, according to lead author Dr Jan Lenaerts of Utrecht University who says, "Even if we assume that global warming is not happening quite so fast, it is still highly likely that the ice is going to melt at an alarming rate. The chances of it growing back are very slim."

One of the main reasons for the irreversibility lies in the fact that snow melting on tundra, and sea ice loss from around the glaciers, actually reinforce regional warming, with significant consequences on the glaciers of Northern Canada. Snow and sea ice reflect the sunlight, and when the snow and have disappeared, a large part of the sunlight will be absorbed by the land and the sea, which will significantly increase the local temperature.

In one scenario 20 per cent of volume of the glaciers disappears by the end of this century. In this scenario the average increases by 3 degrees Centigrade but the rise in temperature around Canadian ice caps is 8 degrees Centigrade. Dr Lenaerts emphasises this is not an extreme scenario.

Canada's Arctic Archipelago glaciers represent the third largest ice body in the world after Greenland and the Antarctic. Should the Canadian ice caps melt completely, the global average sea level will rise by 20 centimetres. Since the year 2000 the temperature in this area has risen by 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade and the ice volume has already significantly decreased. If a fifth of the Canadian ice caps have melted by the end of this century, this leads to an additional sea rise of 3.5cm.

Co-author Professor Michiel van den Broeke of Utrecht University says , "Most attention goes out to Greenland and Antarctica which is understandable because they are the two largest ice bodies in the world. However, with this research we want to show that the Canadian ice caps should be included in the calculations."

Professor David Vaughan programme leader of ice2sea, who is based at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, says, "The Canadian archipelago is an area where climate is changing rapidly, and the glaciers here contain enough ice that we should not ignore their contribution to sea-level rise. Added to in Alaska, the Russian Arctic and Patagonia, these apparently small contributions add up to significant . A key success of this study was in showing that the model performed well in reproducing recently observed changes. That success gives us confidence in how the model predicts future changes".

Explore further: NASA satellites measure increase of Sun's energy absorbed in the Arctic

More information: Irreversible mass loss of Canadian Arctic Archipelago glaciers will be officially published by Geophysical Research Letters this week, but is already available for download on its website.

Related Stories

Melting glaciers raise sea level

Nov 14, 2012

Anthropogenic climate change leads to melting glaciers and rising sea level. Between 1902 and 2009, melting glaciers contributed 11 cm to sea level rise. They were therefore the most important cause of sea ...

Warming oceans threaten Antarctic glaciers

Mar 15, 2007

Scientists have identified four Antarctic glaciers that pose a threat to future sea levels using satellite observations, according to a study published in the journal Science.

Recommended for you

NOAA/NASA satellite sees holiday lights brighten cities

11 hours ago

Even from space, holidays shine bright. With a new look at daily data from the NOAA/NASA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite, a NASA scientist and colleagues have identified how ...

User comments : 37

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 07, 2013
Le chant du coucou are getting desperate in their stridency.

Maggnus
4 / 5 (17) Mar 07, 2013
Le chant du coucou are getting desperate in their stridency.



Which is why they keep posting nonsense to a science site. AT least you're starting to recognize it. Maybe we can begin to teach you some critical thinking and the scientific method now that you're recognizing the lost cause of the so called deniers.

Good thing, I was beginning to think you were a lost cause there Shootist.
ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 07, 2013
The incessant, mindless drubbing by the AGW research whores continues...

Since public opinion is of paramount interest to the AGW zealots, maybe a new poll is in order? Let's find out what percentage of the population cares whether the sea level is 1 3/8" higher in 100 years than it is right now?
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2013
And will continue for the rest of your life.

"The incessant, mindless drubbing by the AGW research whores continues..." - ScooTard

Please do us all a favor and make your life as short as possible.

Doing so will save us the cost of some rope and the time needed to find a thick enough tree branch.
Egleton
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
They are persistent. The pay must be good. True professional Merchants of Doubt.
They did not succeed with tobacco and they will not succeed with the Climate Catastrophe.
As soon as their paymasters stop paying they will be a footnote to history, if that.
anti-geoengineering
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2013
Brought to you by geoengineering. Look up.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
Ah the poor glaciers, ever since the end of the last ice-age, they have been melting faster and faster. It would explain why the Northern Hemisphere is no longer covered by ice 2 miles thick.
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
They are persistent. The pay must be good. True professional Merchants of Doubt.
They did not succeed with tobacco and they will not succeed with the Climate Catastrophe.
As soon as their paymasters stop paying they will be a footnote to history, if that.


Keep it up, Egelton, and you too could become a (vendicard) "Tard". It's a badge of honor.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2013
They are persistent. The pay must be good. True professional Merchants of Doubt.
They did not succeed with tobacco and they will not succeed with the Climate Catastrophe.
As soon as their paymasters stop paying they will be a footnote to history, if that.


Keep it up, Egelton, and you too could become a (vendicard) "Tard". It's a badge of honor.

You wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2013

You wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.


deepsand is being much nicer to you that I would be. I would replace "ignorance" with "stupidity and fraud". Course I am so busy being angry at a communist that my take on things is a bit skewed.

Hmm, nope thought about it, you're still stupid and a fraud. Sorry deepsand, no offense intended.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2013
Ah the poor glaciers, ever since the end of the last ice-age, they have been melting faster and faster. It would explain why the Northern Hemisphere is no longer covered by ice 2 miles thick.


Goodness I almost missed this one! How incredibly stupid can you pretend you are and still think that thinking people would not realize that stupidity at this scale would mean that you would forget to breath? Nice try uba, you should drop this sock puppet now.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2013

You wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.


deepsand is being much nicer to you that I would be. I would replace "ignorance" with "stupidity and fraud". Course I am so busy being angry at a communist that my take on things is a bit skewed.

Hmm, nope thought about it, you're still stupid and a fraud. Sorry deepsand, no offense intended.

None taken. I just like to use different descriptors now and then so as to keep from going stale ;)
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2013
Glaciers will melt faster than ever and loss could be irreversible, warn scientists
LOL. Would these same "scientists" have given us similar dire warnings if they lived in the days of the Laurentide ice sheet?

Canada's Arctic Archipelago glaciers will melt faster than ever in the next few centuries. Research by European funded scientists has shown that 20 per cent of the Canadian Arctic glaciers may have disappeared by the end of this century which would amount to an additional sea level rise of 3.5cm
Oh no! 3.5cm! What an unprecedented disaster! Run! Run for your lives!

Sheesh people, get a grip.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2013
Oh no! 3.5cm! What an unprecedented disaster! Run! Run for your lives!


Here's another one for you Claudias. Can you explain to this misguided fool why a 3.5CM rise in ocean levels is cause for concern? Is this another example of the flaws you see in the science?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2013
Oh no! 3.5cm! What an unprecedented disaster! Run! Run for your lives!
Here's another one for you Claudias. Can you explain to this misguided fool why a 3.5CM rise in ocean levels is cause for concern? Is this another example of the flaws you see in the science?
Don't be such a crybaby.

Perhaps you think the oceans haven't risen more than 3.5cm in the recent past?

Perhaps it's that you're an idiot who is completely ignorant of the science?

Here's the science:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

7cm rise in just the last 20 years. Please point to the unprecedented disaster of biblical proportion this has supposedly caused.

Nothing coming to mind?

Heck, even at high tide, the beaches around here look just like they did when I was a kid.

Maybe higher oceans bring in more sand? Did you think of that?

Tell me: Why is it the one's who complain about the lack of science from the skeptics the loudest, are the one's who understand the science the least?

deepsand
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013
Why is it the one's who complain about the lack of science from the skeptics the loudest, are the one's who understand the science the least?

Why are the skeptic shills those who are most ignorant of Science?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
Why is it the one's who complain about the lack of science from the skeptics the loudest, are the one's who understand the science the least?

Why are the skeptic shills those who are most ignorant of Science?
Says the moron who believes in free energy.

deepsand
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013
Why is it the one's who complain about the lack of science from the skeptics the loudest, are the one's who understand the science the least?

Why are the skeptic shills those who are most ignorant of Science?
Says the moron who believes in free energy.
Says the idiot who makes thing up re. who believes in free energy.

Lies are not going to help you.


deepsand
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
Says the moron who believes in free energy.

Says the idiot who makes thing up re. who believes in free energy.

Lies are not going to help you.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
Why is it the one's who complain about the lack of science from the skeptics the loudest, are the one's who understand the science the least?
Why are the skeptic shills those who are most ignorant of Science?
Says the moron who believes in free energy.
Says the idiot who makes thing up re. who believes in free energy.

Lies are not going to help you.
Then (unlike you) it's a good thing I don't use them, isn't it?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
Says the moron who believes in free energy.
Says the idiot who makes thing up re. who believes in free energy.

Lies are not going to help you.
LOL. Aren't you the one that claimed:

"Adding more CO2 molecules increases the probability that any given IR photon will be repeatedly absorbed and re-radiated.

Increased absorption/re-radiation of IR photons increases radiative forcing on the passive radiating body in question.

Increased radiative forcing raises the total thermal energy of said body.

Increased thermal energy raises the average temperature of said body.

ELEMENTARY PHYSICS." - deepsand

-------------

To which I responded:

Wrong! This is proof you don't understand the physics. The photon's energy contribution to the system isn't increasing the energy of the system every time it is "re-radiated." It's that the system supposedly retains more IR photons (heat), overall.

ROFLMAO

deepsand
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013
You are a flaming retard.

None of what I said claims or even implies that a "photon's energy contribution to the system increases the energy of the system every time it is re-radiated."

That you should so interpret it stands as proof of either your ignorance or your stooping to deliberate misrepresentation when such serves your wants.

You are despicable.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
You are a flaming retard.

None of what I said claims or even implies that a "photon's energy contribution to the system increases the energy of the system every time it is re-radiated."
LOL. Denying what you wrote won't make it go away.

That you should so interpret it stands as proof of either your ignorance or your stooping to deliberate misrepresentation when such serves your wants.
Isn't it funny how you changed your tune when I pointed out how wrong you were, and then you repeated what I said, claiming it as your own?

You are despicable.
This appears to be your problem, as exemplified by your opening statement.

deepsand
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
Denying what you wrote won't make it go away.

Pretending that your misrepresentations stand as a faithful renderings of the words of others, when such are public for all to see, is sheer stupidity.

Others are correct when they label you a congenital liar.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
Denying what you wrote won't make it go away.

Pretending that your misrepresentations stand as a faithful renderings of the words of others, when such are public for all to see, is sheer stupidity.
How is it a misrepresentation when I provided the full quote, as written by you? LOL.

Are you saying your own words are misrepresentations now? Wouldn't that mean you're calling yourself a liar?

Others are correct when they label you a congenital liar.
LOL. Resorting to the name-calling again. What's the matter? Is the science just too difficult for poor little deepsand? LOL.

Seriously. Grow up.

deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
How is it a misrepresentation when I provided the full quote, as written by you?

Your continuing to evade the fact that you deliberate misconstrued my words is what makes you deserving of being called a liar.

It's not "name calling," but being factually correct. If you are offended, then stop lying.

Is the science just too difficult ... ?

It's obviously too difficult for you, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013
Oh no! 3.5cm! What an unprecedented disaster! Run! Run for your lives!


Here's another one for you Claudias. Can you explain to this misguided fool why a 3.5CM rise in ocean levels is cause for concern? Is this another example of the flaws you see in the science?


Another brilliant response from MagganusTurd
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013
Oh no! 3.5cm! What an unprecedented disaster! Run! Run for your lives!


Here's another one for you Claudias. Can you explain to this misguided fool why a 3.5CM rise in ocean levels is cause for concern? Is this another example of the flaws you see in the science?


Another brilliant response from MagganusTurd

And a not so brilliant one from you.

But, thanks for playing; it's nice to have cheap entertainment.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013

Your continuing to evade the fact that you deliberate misconstrued my words is what makes you deserving of being called a liar.
-- deepSandTurd

And your mutilation of the English language, is far from entertaining.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013

Your continuing to evade the fact that you deliberate misconstrued my words is what makes you deserving of being called a liar.


And your mutilation of the English language, is far from entertaining.

I take it that English is not your first language. :rolleyes:
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
How is it a misrepresentation when I provided the full quote, as written by you?
Your continuing to evade the fact that you deliberate misconstrued my words is what makes you deserving of being called a liar.
Let's strip the fat away and take a closer look:

"...repeated...absorption/re-radiation of IR photons...raises the total thermal energy..."

So how did I misconstrue your words? Keep in mind: You already tried to back away from your words simply by stealing mine. That didn't work so well for you.

It's not "name calling," but being factually correct. If you are offended, then stop lying.
As demonstrated numerous times, it is you who is the liar.

Is the science just too difficult ... ?
It's obviously too difficult for you, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Says the idiot who thinks science is nothing more than a popularity contest.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
Your continuing to evade the fact that you deliberate misconstrued my words is what makes you deserving of being called a liar.
-- deepSandTurd

And your mutilation of the English language, is far from entertaining.
LOL. I disagree. It's particularly entertaining to twist him up, by throwing his own words back at him.

His poor syntax does make me wonder though...

Do you think he might be a spambot?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
Your continuing to evade the fact that you deliberate misconstrued my words is what makes you deserving of being called a liar.
And your mutilation of the English language, is far from entertaining.
I take it that English is not your first language. :rolleyes:
You barely manage it yourself! LOL.

deepsand
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2013
Good night, Irene.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2013
Another brilliant response from MagganusTurd


Why thank you againstseeing! I thought it was a pretty good one myself. Encapsulated the depth of the misrepresentation while intimating the deliberately deceitful motive of the author.

Yes, you're right it was a brilliant response!
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2013
7cm rise in just the last 20 years. Please point to the unprecedented disaster of biblical proportion this has supposedly caused.


A misrepresentation of the science, combined with a misrepresentation of the possible effects, wrapped in an overstated consequence. You have to work hard to reach this level of fallacy.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2013
Your continuing to evade the fact that you deliberate misconstrued my words is what makes you deserving of being called a liar.


This is why not engaging them is important. People like Dumbva and againstseeing can't allow the science to affect their positions, otherwise they have to acknowledge their world view is skewed. So anything you say or point to in the science is immediateld scoffed at, down-played and misrepresented, and worse, it only serves to entrench them further.

Dumva thinks he is looking all smart and is somehow "winning" by using the antics he does. Keep in mind, he is way in the minority, a minority that shrinks every time he and those like him open their mouth.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.