Greenland ice melt may cause dramatic change of northeast coasts

A new study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has found that Greenland's melting ice may have a greater effect on sea level rise on the northeastern coasts of the U.S. and Canada than previously hypothesized.

"If Greenland's ice melts at moderate to high rates, ocean circulation by 2100 may shift and cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by about 12 to 20 inches (about 30 to 50 centimeters) more than in other coastal areas. The research builds on recent reports that have found that sea level rise associated with global warming could adversely affect North America, and its findings suggest that the situation is more threatening than previously believed," NCAR said in its preliminary report.

Additional sea level rise from Greenland ice melt in centimeters.

(Credit: Graphic courtesy Geophysical Research Letters, modified by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR))

The group of researchers on the project, which was led by NCAR's Aixue Hu, included scientists from NCAR, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Florida State University. The report research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

Greenland ice has been melting at a rate of about 7 percent per year within the last few years. But Hu and his group modeled several different scenarios based on different melting rates using NCAR's Community Climate System Model, which simulates global climate change. They did not include overall global sea level rise by other factors such as Arctic ice melt, but sea level rise based on Greenland ice melt alone.

The group wants to educate the public on the misconception that the oceans of the world spread out evenly.

"The oceans will not rise uniformly as the world warms. Ocean dynamics will push water in certain directions, so some locations will experience sea level rise that is larger than the global average," NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, co-author of the paper, said in a statement.

If Greenland's ice melt rate slows to 1 percent per year, northeastern sea levels would, at most, rise 8 inches (20 cm) by 2100.

If Greenland's ice melt rate slows to 3 percent per year, it could raise world sea level by 21 inches (54 cm) by 2100.

Most interesting may be the group's predictions in the unlikely event that Greenland's ice melt rate were to continue its 7 percent increase per year.

In that scenario, the increased drain of freshwater into the North Atlantic would change oceanic circulation of warm water pumping into the Arctic, which would in turn lead to a temporary recovery of Arctic sea ice.

A full report of NCAR's findings will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters this Friday.

[global-warming_is_BS]

The Sky is falling! the Sky is falling! Just more BS.

[William Crow]

We need more central planning.

[bigrobinson1974]

It's called 'Greenland' because of the way it looked last time the ice melted.

[rockygebeltarik]

Incorrect. It was named Greenland by Leif Ericsson because the very name of Iceland, his home, discouraged settlers from mainland Europe, so Ericsson decided on a good PR name for a land of ice and snow and a thin strip of grazing land.

[heraclitus1]

If you examine the evidence and conclude there is no danger from greenhouse gases you need to do nothing. But look at what is required of you if you conclude otherwise. This is why the camp in denial of AGW will win the political day. Those of us who have seen the evidence and concluded that we are, indeed, having an effect upon our climate may have to settle for the uncomfortable result of being correct.

[Dr_Zinj]

Too bad we can't move Greenland about 3000 miles further south. Of course Norway would love it.

[harchh]

They note that the Greenland-caused projected in sea levels was made without consideration for the rise that a melted arctic would cause. Good thing, since the arctic ice cap is already floating, and its complete melting would not raise sea levels a bit. Toward the end they note that changes in ocean salinity would cause faster freezing in the arctic and help mitigate sea level rises if Greenland melts at 7% or more per year. Same concern with this comment. The arctic ice cap is floating, so making it bigger faster will not change the water level either.

Are these kind of important mistakes in the summary of an article written by scientists?

[WriteRight]

"Good thing, since the arctic ice cap is already floating, and its complete melting would not raise sea levels a bit."
As far as I know this is not true. Most of the ice on both poles is actually sitting on bedrock meaning that most of the melting ice will contribute to raising the level of the oceans.

[harchh]

The climate of the earth is changing. It's not clear if it is a natural cycle, or if man is having some positive or negative influence on rate of that change.
The greenhouse gas theory is an unproven theory. (Thus the name.) Many people conclude that it is true, but it is certainly not a fact.
The affect of an ice age on human population on the planet earth for the eons that it would last would certainly kill most of the human population.

Perhaps we should stop planning to try and push us toward an ice age (the outcome of stopping global warming) until we're dealing in facts? Perhaps all of that investment in seeding clouds or putting iron into the oceans or charging for carbon emissions would be better spent on coal gasification? (Or pick your own favorite non-oil based energy holy grail.)

[rockygebeltarik]

Greenhouse gas theory is indeed a theory, like the theory of gravity. That doesn't mean I'm going to hold an anvil over my foot and let go, hoping that the predictions of the fact and data based theory will not hold. The odds are they will, and my foot will hurt. CO2 in the atmosphere does trap infrared radiation (fact), it's concetration in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in 800,000 years (greenland and antarctic ice cores analysis-fact) and is increasing every year (fact), and human CO2 production has increased the level of CO2 by 35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution (fact) CO2 atmospheric concentration has increased steadily, year by year as measured at mauna loa, from 310 ppm in 1959 to 385 ppm last year (fact). Perhaps harchh can suggest another source for all this CO2? And ignore the fact of all the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps harchh can suggest a feedback loop that is going to stop the predicatble temperature rise (predictable because of the fact that higher CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat) that will counteract the effects of such a major dumping of CO2 by the human population. If you can't idetify a plausible scenario, I gues you just hope the anvil won't land on your foot.

[harchh]

Oh...I forgot to add. When I say that it's clear that the climate of the earth is changing, note that it's also not clear if the planet is presently warming or cooling. A decade ago it was all the rage to sound the alarms that a new ice age was right around the corner. And I have to tell you, a new ice age scares me a lot more than another 36" of ocean level in NYC. I'm pretty sure that the human race can adapt to a shift in climate-caused agriculture and water resources more easily than living on 8000' of planet-wide icecap.

[WriteRight]

I can't agree with you more on that. I still remember a time in my childhood when we were being continually told that a new ice age is approaching and northern Europe, Canada and Russia will be engulfed in icebergs. Since then I tend to take these end of world predictions with a pinch of salt. Sure, it might just be that the world climate is warming up - it is after all a fact that polar ice is melting - but up until now no one has convinced me that it is man made seeing that the earth's climate has warmed up and cooled down many times in the earth's history without mankind having anything to do with it. Maybe we should concentrate more on coming to terms with what we can't avoid instead of trying to stop it by cutting down on CO2. Something we are probably never going to manage anyway.

[eyeglas]

It's aggravating when articles like this give no facts to backup the claims made, and it's aggravating to see apparent descepancies.

Example: The article said moderate to high melt rates would raise sea levels 12-20 inches by 2100. Then it says if the melt slows to only 3 inches per year, sea levels would rise only 21 inches by 2100. Which statistic do we believe?

Example: The article says Greenland has been melting at 7% per year for the past several years. Not said was the currently observed sea level rise. There is a sea level rise...isn't there? At 7% melt per year for the past "several" years a sea level rise should have been observable by now, right? And observed by an amount consistent with the study's rate of rise?

Example: The article said the water would not level out over the ocean, inferring it would somehow exist in a 12 to 20 (or 21) inch high "hump" in the North Atlantic area, at least by the year 2100. How is this possible?

Example: The article claims that continuation of the 7% melt rate would cause a temporary recovery of Arctic sea ice. It doesn't say how this was supposed to be possible.

Frustrating reading!