Record Ice Sheet Melt In 2010 – Sea Level Drops 20 mm

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://www.ibtimes.com/

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Record Ice Sheet Melt In 2010 – Sea Level Drops 20 mm

  1. Mike Davis says:

    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!

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      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)?

      • Airframe Engineer says:

        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.

      • Petem says:

        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!!!!

  2. Paul H says:

    WWF research – well we really had better believe them.

    By the way what is bare ice?

  3. Paul H says:

    The situation in the Sea of Okhotsk is getting worse by the hour.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/stormy-weather.html

  4. Sundance says:

    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.

  5. mkelly says:

    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.

  6. Tony Duncan says:

    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

  7. BioBob says:

    OK, serious question for anyone.

    Why do they use linear regression on a process that is unlikely to be constant for the period ?

  8. mt says:

    Why are they blaming global warming when the ice looks like this:

  9. latitude says:

    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

  10. mkelly says:

    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.

  11. Brian G Valentine says:

    Anybody who pays the least bit attention to WWF dog crap needs psychotherapy or psycho-pharmacology or is beyond anything those can help.

  12. Bruce says:

    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?

      • Bruce says:

        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?

    • Richard111 says:

      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.

      • Richard111 says:

        “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.

  13. Paul H says:

    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.

  14. Anything is possible says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s