If 1 Gt of ice has a volume of 1 km^3 and the current volume of the Greenland ice sheet is ~5 million km^3 and Greenland continues to melt at a rate of 230 km^3/yr over the next 90 years… The Greenland ice sheet will lose a bit more than 0.4% of its ice volume.~230 gigatonnes (Gt) of ice per year equates to about 0.005% of ice mass loss per year. At the current rate, it would take 1,000 years for the Greenland Ice Sheet to lose 5% of its volume.
Yeah this “Greenland Ice-sheet suddenly melting” myth has been debunked ad nauseum but that doesn’t stop the enviro-nazis from chanting it.
I hope it all melts, So we can plant barley and other useful things in Greenland.
That calculation doesn’t factor in such variables such as colder winters, more snow some years etc.. if the data presented was done by a realistic scientist, he’d error on the side of caution or present it with several exceptions. If it as done by a greenie, you can be sure we’ll be making ice cubes with it 10,000 years from now.
Don’t panic greenies. The data is being CORRECTED to conform to our cults leaders claims.
http://www.real-science.com/was-envisat-hit-by-an-asteroid
wonder if anyone has done the “study” to find out land lost due to ocean rise verses land gained because Greenland would be a warmer place, and Eric the Red could farm there again!!!
Math is so haaaard!!! All those zeroes and the division and multiplication…It’s soooo confuuuuusing!!!! (That was sarcasm, by the way.)
I blame it all on the school system. I was helping my son in grade 4 do his math homework last night–division. It ain’t pretty how they teach these poor kids how to divide. I started teaching him how I learned long division from my grandmother…he’s slowly getting the mechanics of it. They’re taught at school to break down a number like 124 (100, 20, 4) and divide each smaller number by the divisor. So 124/4 on paper would look like this 100/4, 20/4, 4/4…then the answer for each would then be added together. How the heck would you do that with a divisor like 165?
I don’t care what your dumb arithmetic says, I know Gaia loves me and that makes all my lies, distortions, frauds and fake science OK.
Cheers . . Dr. Fruit Fly
and all the oil in the world will not fill Lake Ontario. and the total flow of all the oil in the world is the same as the june max flow of the bow river. and if you could burn it on the btm of the ocean in one day you cant raise the temperature of the ocean by one degree. the scale of this planet is amazingly large compared to humans.
all of the humans in the world could dance on the Mendenhahl glacier about Juno.Alaska. All the humans in the world could live in suburbia in Texas
pencils are worderful things
OMG!!! The sky is melting – the sky is melting!!! Quick – nuke the whales!!
Yes, math is hard.
I suppose the question is one of arithmetic.
Is the decline of Greenland’s ice sheets a linear function or one with changing dynamics?
Consider how snow melts on one’s lawn. Does it disappear in a linear fashion or a non-linear one…
I wonder.
Haven’t done the math myself, but from observation, I’d say the rates of melt do not remain the same throughout the process.
The Wet One
My comment is not directly related to the Greenland ice sheet but is certainly related.
I just heard on the TV News that Lord Suzuki can’t think of any province that is doing less to prevent climate change then mine (Saskatchewan). And I say with a great deal of loud pride in my voice…..We are No 1….We are No. 1 !!!!
robw, that just can’t stand. Alberta must fight to reclaim the title, and fight we will!
I think the bigger question is how do we (conservative/logic inspired) people gain back control of not only the message but of the people we entrust to produce and send out the message.
he’d better hope that sea levels don’t fall…
that wasn’t good the last time.
http://io9.com/5900488/the-bering-land-bridge-nearly-wrecked-the-earths-climate
…North America’s climate began experiencing violent climate swings, with average temperatures shifting as much as ten degrees every decade.
That pattern of massive temperature swings lasted a whopping 70,000 years, which just so happens to be pretty much the exact same time period the land bridge connected Alaska and Siberia….
cal2 wrote:
All the humans in the world could live in suburbia in Texas
We did the math for that calculate a couple of years ago at work. We wanted to see how much land it would take to house all of humanity in typical suburban single family homes.
We assumed 4 people per home, a lot size of 50 by 120 feet, +10% of the housing area for roads, +10% of the housing+roads area for other infrastructure (parks, schools, etc).
The area we came up with had all 7 or 8 billion of us living in a land mass the size of Australia or India. Which I thought was pretty doable.
Was your “suburbia in Texas” suggestion based on numbers, or just a rough guesstimate? I’m not criticising — I’m just curious to see how this might actually be calculated.
Dalty McGuinty, Premier of Ontar-i-owe, has created another kind of greenland and bankrupted the province in the process. We have the wind turbines going whir and thump and solar panels all creating visual pollution across the province.
Frankly I’m surprised Suzuki doesn’t move to Ontar-i-owe.
“I just heard on the TV News that Lord Suzuki can’t think of any province that is doing less to prevent climate change then mine (Saskatchewan). And I say with a great deal of loud pride in my voice…..We are No 1….We are No. 1 !!!!”
Posted by: robw at April 12, 2012 2:44 PM
Me thinks that you have just stumbled on the answer to why the Saskatchewan glaciers disappeared. /sarc
“Consider how snow melts on one’s lawn. Does it disappear in a linear fashion or a non-linear one…”
I happen to remember that the ice stays around a lot longer than the snow. Especially in the shade.
And guess what? Greenland is in the shade a lot and its covered in ice.
And most of the interior of greenland is below sea level because the weight of the ice has pressed it down.
So you have this big below sea level bowl ringed by mountains with only short periods of serious sunlight.
Greenland will be here long after humans are wiped out by the next ice age.
If we want to stop Suzuki et alia from pushing this crap, we’ll have to dig a deep, deep hole in the ice sheet; then cover it with a white tarp covered in snow; and when Suzuki bends over to investigate it, we kick him in the ice hole.
Oh yeah … and snow falls every winter on Greenland and is turning to ice way up high where it is always pretty cold. The small amount of melting is on the edges.
// At the current rate //
Ay, there’s the rub …
If the experts know so much about the future, why use the current rate”? Maybe they should use the future rate. & bet their future pensions on this figure too… Since they know so much.
I guess it’s something like how Crocodile Dundee explained aboriginal notions of land ownership….
It’s like 2 fleas arguing about which one owns the dog…….
I recall my one sojourne to Greenland….at the head of Eriksfyord there are the ruins of Viking farmsteads….some just emerging from under the ice face. I enquired about how many more could be there….the answer…about 8….
The Greenlanders were nominally Christian, with priests who kept records….death and taxes…even then…
Jokalups……
Saskatchewan sequesters a lot of CO2. Suzuki is disingenuous and dishonest.
Wall is disingenuous and dishonest.
dizzy, you haven’t said anything in your post, don’t you know that? You haven’t even completed a thought. You are glaringly mentally disarrayed and need help desperately, and you’re too frickin’ stupid to realize it, and – ay, there’s the rub. 😀
So diz – is it Prius or some other model for you? Just testing the depth of your convictions y’know. Assclown.
Ice? Ice.. they put that stuff in rye&coke don’t they?
Well I’m all for it then!
Carry on.
population of 7 billion , 4 people per house, 10 houses per acre, 640 acres per square mile , do your guzintas , get 270000 ish square miles , about the size of texsass or albirda.
australia and india have way more room , even queensland is twice the size of texas by itself.
marc
// If the experts know so much about the future, why use the current rate”? Maybe they should use the future rate. //
It is the poster at WUWT who assumes that the current rate will continue into the future. [for a 1000 years anyway] in his calculations.
The “experts” say that the loss has been accelerating —
“…for each year over the 18-year study, the Greenland ice sheet lost mass faster than it did the year before, by an average of 21.9 gigatonnes a year.
One of the WUWT commenters helpfully corrected the poster’s math
The post also includes a graph purporting to show that the Holocene thermal maximum was 2C warmer than the present. The graph, when looked at carefully, ends in 1850, before most AGW
marc, “The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia)”
Marc, they keep revising their guesses. Measuring ice with the GRACE satellite isn’t much more than Wild Ass Guess.
“Satellite measurement of glaciers in the Himalayas revealed that these mountains lost only one-tenth the ice between 2003 and 2010 compared to the loss reported in previous estimates. (Source). The Guardian (U.K.) reports that Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.””
They were only off by a factor of 10.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/02/27/ice-loss-minimal-in-antarctica-greenland-and-himalayas/
Aplogies. Previous post should be addressed to dizzy.
Aye…but here’s the rub…
This same element hold forth the bergs and bergy bits in Disco Bay as evidence that the Greenland Ice-cap is breaking up….
What they do not relate is that bergs and bergy bits result from TIDE-WATER glaciers subject to tidal action. If it was melting the ice-front would be on solid land going drip drip drip not out in the water going….snap.
Receding glaciers do not calve icebergs…advancing glaciers do.
Outlet glaciers are evidence of the ice-sheet growing not shrinking.
BTW….how does Antarctica melt at -30C?
Reliable science indicates the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing in mass and area…..
“Reliable science indicates the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing in mass and area…..”
90% of it. So that part is never mentioned.
The Antarctic Pensinsula has warmed a little, but is ia very small part of whole continent.
But I betcha it makes the news 1000 times for every one time the rest of the continents cooling is mentioned.
“.how does Antarctica melt at -30C?”
Unicorn farts.