E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory
About 40 percent of Greenland's ice sheet thawed at or near the surface on July 8. Four days later, the melt had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed.
Three satellites found that 97 percent of Greenland -- the land mass second only to Antarctica for its volume of ice -- underwent a thaw never before seen in 33 years of satellite tracking, NASA reported Tuesday.
Satellite experts at first didn't trust their readings, especially since they showed an incredible acceleration. Over four days, Greenland's ice sheet -- which covers 683,000 square miles -- went from 40 percent in thaw to nearly entirely in thaw.
"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: Was this real or was it due to a data error?" Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, Calif., said in NASA's statement about the findings.
Scientists on the ground in Greenland had been reporting an unusually warm summer thaw, including damage at a snow airfield and strong runoff threatening a bridge, Tom Wagner, who manages NASA's ice research programs, told NBC News.
Ice cores from Greenland's highest region do reveal that such island-wide thaws have happened every 150 years or so, at least over the last few thousand years, but the fear now is that it might occur much more frequently due to warming sea and air temperatures.
"We can't lose sight of the fact that Greenland's ice sheet is losing 150 gigatons of ice a year," Wagner said. That translates into raising sea levels by one-one hundredth of an inch. Additionally, the danger of greater warming and greater melt persists.
"If we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome," said Lora Koenig, a NASA glaciologist who helped analyze the satellite data.
Monitoring stations on land "showed temperatures above freezing, confirming that the surface was melting for the entire ice sheet," Konrad Steffen, director of the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told NBC News.
Since then, he added, "temperatures have fallen below freezing for the higher elevations but still are melting below 1500 meters."
The director of the top ice research center in the U.S. said the discovery fits into "the larger picture of a strongly warming Arctic."
A large glacier, twice the size of Manhattan, split off on July 16. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
"Arctic sea ice extent this summer is so far tracking at very low, near record levels, and the ice cover is unusually diffuse," Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center told NBC News.
On top of that, he said, the seasonal melt that followed the 2012 winter "started unusually early over most of the Arctic Ocean."
The center's latest report, issued Tuesday, noted that" Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July, with open water in the Kara and Barents seas reaching as far north as typically seen during September."
Thomas Mote, a University of Georgia climatologist who looked at the satellite data, said the melt followed an unusual series of warm air ridges over Greenland since late May, with the strongest coinciding with the rapid thaw in mid-July.
Each successive ridge, Mote told NBC News, was "stronger than the previous one" and it looks like the pattern has finally broken down.
The ridges happened just as a cyclical weather phase known as the North Atlantic Oscillation shifted. "Together, they produced near perfect conditions for this event," Mote added.
Related: Huge Greenland iceberg breaks off glacier
Because they hold so much ice on land, Greenland and Antarctica have the potential to raise sea levels significantly if warming continues or worsens.
Sea levels have already risen by about 8 inches in the last century, partly due to some ice melt but also thermal expansion caused by warming seas.
The U.N. climate panel estimates sea level could rise between 7 inches and nearly two feet this century -- the latter a scenario that could prove catastrophic for many coastal areas around the globe.
NASA said researchers had not yet determined whether this summer's Greenland thaw would be significant enough to raise sea levels.
Greenland has enough ice to raise sea levels by 23 feet if it all melted off.
A recent study found that it could take a long-term increase in global temperatures of just 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit to completely melt Greenland's ice sheet in 2,000 years.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Going for gold: British workers cash in on Olympics with strike threats
- Afghan police commander leads defection to Taliban
- Norway to London: One family's Olympic odyssey
- Reports: Workers told to underplay Fukushima radiation
- US F-16 fighter jet crashes off coast of Japan
- Gunman in Afghan police uniform kills 3, wounds several
- Explosion, fire shuts down Turkey-Iraq oil pipeline; PKK blamed
- Assad reportedly directs troops from tribal heartland as rebels flood capital
Follow World News on NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
We have more land to grow food, but I'm getting scared because in a 100 years, the ocean will rise an inch.
Think of all the scientists who will have funding from our tax dollars while China is using its taxes to explore space.
Where did you get the 1 inch in 100 years from?
golfsleft-
If you read the article, you"ll find the quote-
"We can't lose sight of the fact that Greenland's ice sheet is losing 150 gigatons of ice a year," Wagner said. That translates into raising sea levels by one-one hundredth of an inch. Additionally, the danger of greater warming and greater melt persists. "
That would be one inch added in 100 years, if it stayed at that accelerated rate for 100 years!
"That would be one inch added in 100 years"
Yes, but that is only from Greenland. Other ice melts too. It is GLOBAL warming after all.
I suspect the scientists on this study are correct, that there will be more of this type of event as the climate continues warming. The more we learn about the dynamics of degrading ice caps in the arctic and antarctic, the more evidence we have that the IPCC projection of sea level rise over the next 100 years is conservative. Our grandchildren will live in a vastly different world than we grew up in. Unfortunately much of that difference will be due to climate-related catastrophes.
Ice has been melting and freezing back for as long as its been there...someone got new cameras and took a melting picture. You can bet Greenland will be there when you gone.
I am considered a liberal, but I am also a scientist. I look at the facts and the geological cycles over hundreds of millions of years that can be gleaned from ice and rock cores. The earth's climate changes, regardless of what man does, that's a fact. Whether or not man has contributed to the intensity or not, remains unknown. Regards of the actual causes, we do, as responsible citizens of this planet, have to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels--period! I don't think anyone, right or left can argue with this.
"Whether or not man has contributed to the intensity or not, remains unknown. "
This is simply untrue. The scientific evidence is pretty strong and growing.
Yes, the climate scientists are well aware of past cycles.
Sorry Jock, you are wrong. It is still an unknown. Do some research.
Certainty of man caused climate change is at 3 sigma level. 1000 to 1 against it being wrong.
This event doesn't prove global warming, and the article doesn't claim it does. We already know global warming is occurring. This is just another example that could well be related to it, even though we would have to look at longer trends to be sure.
Gee, I wonder why they named it Greenland all those years ago. Maybe because it was white, nope, or maybe because it was GREEN. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, no matter what any of you think can be done. There are way to many people on the planet that need food, water and warmth. As for the wind turbine and solar panel people, who is going to pay for it? Used to be if you lived to 40 or 50 you were doing something. Now people are living past their 80's and 90's. Major countries have lowered their birth rates while the 3rd world people keep breeding like rats. China and India are major fossil fuel consumers now and don't have anti pollution standards anywhere near what are used in Europe, US, Japan. In the very near future the world won't be competing for fossil fuels, it will be over clean water and arable land. My advise if you own beachfront property, then sell it.
"I wonder why they named it Greenland all those years ago."
Real estate marketing.
Greenland has been covered in ice for millions of years. The Vikings took advantage of small changes at the southern tip.
Jock - somewhat true - but a deeper dive into history proves the vikings actually colonized a much larger part of Greenland than a small southern tip - the vikings named it Vineland and in the 13th century there was severe change in the climate where cooling took place and thus forced the colonies to concentrate in the coastal areas which remain inhabited today
Greenland has been ice free as well in the past, as was Antartica. Change happens and we can only try to limit our impact, but not spend billions of dollars to do it ineffectively and throw money at any idea.
Vinland is thought to be Newfoundland, where a village has been found. The vikings had two settlements in Greenland, one near the southern tip, and another up the side a fair ways. Yes, that one would have collapsed first. The cooling was mostly in the 14th century, and the colonies were completely lost. Of course the Inuit live all around Greenland, because they know how to use the sea and are not dependent on crops.
Yes, jphelps, the whole world was ice-free until about 50 million years ago. and yes, we are aonly debating about our impact. I also agree that we shouldn't throw money at just anything, but need to be smart and efficient about it. So let's all get together and figure that out instead of wasting time arguing about science that we don't understand in the first place.
Fux News will trot out the 5 scientists who still claim there is no climate change due to humans...they distort you believe...
The one constant on earth is change. There's a rule of expansion and contraction happening continuously. Everything works that way. The earth may take thousands of years to complete one cycle, that's the norm. Like tires on your car, winter, contract, summer, expand,.. the pores on your skin, cold, contract, hot, expand,... the tide, low, contract, high, expand, the same is true about the economy. So nothings new about the law of nature, it was here before we were.
The climate scientists are well aware of past cycles and the reasons for many of them. That doesn't mean wec can't affect the climate ALSO. In fact, it is partly by studying those past changes that scientists have realized the important role of CO2 in most of them.
Soon Greenland will actually be green, then Donald Trump can build a golf resort there.
Its going to make a bigger Splash when the Meteor hits or sends us out in orbit--its this year coming --and who hears anything about this No One-Why--Panic sets in--Save the Earth until--Hahahaha
Don't believe your lying eyes. Nothing to see here so move along, there's no such thing as global warming. But do me a favor. Turn down the air conditioning on your way out.
I'm not sure we can turn this global warming back around.
I know me throwing an aluminum can away in the regular trash will hurt.
I DO KNOW THAT THE POWERS THAT ARE ABLE TO MAKE CHANGE THAT COULD MATTER.
Name calling solves nothing. And yes, both sides of the argument have scientists. Data can be skewed to look however one wants to. But let's try and use a little common sense. We are more sophisticated (at least one would hope) than we were a few hundred years ago. We can carbon date to find out that dinosaurs lived... and yes lived millions of years ago. Indeed the world is not 6000 years old but indeed approximately 4.1 billion years old.
With that aside, let's use some common sense. We know the world isn't flat. It is older than the bible says. How do we know this? Some common sense and some science.
Science tells us that the ice age took thousands of years to come and should take as many thousands of years to recede. I am not going to paste URLs here. You all are big boys and girls. It has been proven that the arctic polar ice cap has dropped 80% since the mid-1980's. That is not natural. Not based on what scientists have proven over the last century on how glaciers move and melt. It should have taken a couple of thousand years for the arctic to diminish in the way it has.
Hiding behind scriptures and a veil of social rhetoric will not change facts. What we are seeing is indeed not normal. Even conservative scientists attest to it.
No I don't have solar panels and I drive a car. I work from home so I don't burn as many fossil fuels and my recycling bin is more full than my garbage can (does this satisfy you Phil?).
There used to be naysayers that said the earth was the center of the universe. What happened to them after they found they were wrong? What happened to the naysayers when they found out the world wasn't flat or when we found out the world is indeed older than 6000 years old?
Ok, now you guys can call me names and swear at me. Why use common sense when you can let others think for you.
The only scientists who deny anthropomorphic climate change are the ones being paid to have that opinion.
The only scientists who support man-made climate change are the ones being paid to have that opinion.
ernie, you should know that simply isn't true. I'm sure that won't stop you from saying it, but just remember when you finally realise your mistake that you were told.
Wow it seems every time this subject hit's the news it's crazy liberals, I am not saying that i agree with all the left field stuff they preach but Republicans have been fighting this since day one hmmmm I wonder why that is........ oh wait I know it's called money and lots of it. If you trace pretty much every last cent oil, coal any fossil fuel corp. will do anything to keep the status quo witch means fighting even the littlest regulation to effect there bottom line. This sh!t makes me sick every time I see it if people can't see this then maybe some people need to go back to basic chemistry from high school and figure out on your own how the many type of gasses and how they effect the world around us.
And the trolls in here I love the same flimsy ass statements "it's a normal cycle of the earth" please stop drinking the koolaid and get back to reality because every parent in here needs to think and apply common sense and hope they realize if stuff doesn't change or they will leave a burning inferno of a planet to there children.
Oh wait now i get it, look at ages of most of the house and the senate, the average age is about 60 years old so what the hell do they care they will be dead, no problem for them.
Shifting Gears, there are hundreds of credible scientists that have published papers and have been interviewed over a few years now. It is a fact that there is a warming/cooling cycle but the point here is that the velocity of the meltdowns and ambient temperatures rising is unprecedented in the record.
I agree with you that this is a global problem beyond the US and there are significant efforts being made to prosecute this at that level. And there needs to be leadership and world leaders (multiple) in these efforts.
Global warming is just Jesus giving the world a hug.
The earth is flat. It is, it is it IS! (holding my breath and stomping my feet)
greenland is called greenland because it at one time was green.i.e. no ice. let all tree huggers that love the earth turn there computers off as it use electricity to run it, give up there cars , and there energy using homes and go live on a flat rock, they use this to get what they want . total control of everything, nothing new here just a move by communist to take over the world, like i said greenland was once green, it may happen again
No, Greenland is called Greenland because the vikings wanted to encourage people to go there rather than Iceland, which was so named to discourage people from going there. Or so the legend goes.
Greenland was green, when it was part of Pangea.
Weather or not you beieve that the ice melt is the cause of man, normal climate change or a combination of both the facts are.
coastal cities will flood
storms will increase in both intensity and strength
temps will increase
crops will be effected causing famine
people will die
if it is natural there is nothing that can be done, if man-made we could make changes to effect the outcome. personally i hope it is man-made. At least if it is we have a chance to effect the outcome.
If everything is flooding why are most of the rivers in the U.S. much below their normal level? The Mississippi on average is 16 feet low.
Greenland is an enormous supervolcano. The magma under Greenland heats and cools and heats and cools. Part of the volcano erupted recently, which would indicate that it is at the hot part of its cycle. Hot rock melts ice.
Jerry
See your doctor.
It appears the naysayers have a firm belief that the world is flat. That's really the argument isn't it? None bring up the sea levels, acknowledge that this is a real problem for countries like Denmark, places like Vienna. That Islands throughout the Pacific Ocean are already seeing the land shrink around them, contaminating crops with sea water. As the seas rise, so will that water migrate into underground rivers and aquafiers. You'd think none of them had ever floated a toy boat down a rainy gutter. Couple this with the 1% Retaliban owners who are pulling the strings of our government, creating wars to serve themselves and their interests, convincing the poor and ignorant that fracking will solve all of their problems and won't hurt a bit. You've got these same self serving laying claim to the artic waters for OIL DRILLING! The sociopaths are the Energy Robber Barons as evidenced more clearly in places like West Virginia, Oklahoma and Texas. It's all become so ridiculous, like watching Rupert's News fantasy 24/7. We've screwed the next generation and put them firmly on the path of extinction. The naysayers never want to talk about the bees, poisoning crops with chemicals, Monsanto and all of it's evil, etc. They latch onto a single line and dismiss the rest. Little wonder we are here today and 2000 marked our first silent spring.
Maybe if the people who are screaming "it's all mankind's fault! Stop using energy! Stop eating! Stop driving to work!", would just try doing without the necessities they are complaining about everybody else using, the world would cool, the CO2 and CO would be reduced, and the ozone layer would heal. Then when it is still hotter than usual they might take a look at the increased volcanic activity, the increased solar activity, and look back at historical weather records. Every day on the various local weather forecasts, they state the high temperature for the day, then tell what the record temperature was, and when it happened. On more than half of the days, the record was several degrees higher, and anywhere from 50 to 135 years ago. Also, they may consider spending less time laying around, making illegitimate babies, so there won't be too many people using resources.
Also, I'm not saying Earth is'nt going through a warm part of it's cycle. I'm just saying the natural, ongoing events in the magma and the sun are likely responsible, rather than Al Gore smoking too many cigars.
jerryb-
That's the pattern you get from UHI- rural temp stations swallowed up by cities of asphalt and concrete over decades. Or even better, they put most of those sites at airports. No lack of tarmac there!!! When you take only the quality rural sites left, the warming signal almost disappears.
Royaul: "When you take only the quality rural sites left, the warming signal almost disappears."
That's simply a lie. It has been done many times, even by scientists commissioned by deniers, and they all admitted that the trend is not due to the urban heat island effect.
jerryb, you can say anything you want to, but the science tells us otherwise.
biz12-
The 98% figure is bogus. It was a "poll" of interested parties, sent out by a grad student, pared down from a poor response out of 10,000 emails sent to 77 out of 79 responses. Hardly overwhelming. Check the evidence, or as you point out- the empirical data!
Very interesting read. Let's see, thirty three years of satellite observations on an area of a planet that is approximately 5 billion years old. Hmmm, well, let's put this into some kind of equation or formula. I'm no scientist or mathematician, but the numbers just don't seem to hold up. Let's scrutinize this hypotheses again. Thirty three years of satellite observation versus five billion years of evolution. Still can't get these numbers to jibe. One more time. Thirty three years of satellite observation versus...oh, never mind. It seems obvious that humankind has most indubitably more of an impact on mother earth than do environmental factors since the beginning of time. Wow! I had no idea that mankind was so influential in the overall scheme of things in the universe. Forget about nature, it's mankind that is responsible for every formidable, evolutionary change on this planet. Well, at least now we know the truth, how all things great and small happen on this planet. Man causes them. I had no idea. Guess I was wrong again. Let's just try those numbers one more time...thirty three years of, oh well enough, I'm convinced that mankind is the culprit, argument closed. There are two things mankind is responsible for on this planet: greed and hate, not the climate.
"Thirty three years of satellite observation versus five billion years of evolution."
yes, but please explain why you think that is relevant to the debate. We know that the planet has changed climate many times before. So? We are debating what is happening NOW, and why. The fact that it has happened before is interesting, and climate scientists have studied those changes to learn more, but it doesn't change the fact that we can affect the climate ALSO.
"Forget about nature, it's mankind that is responsible for every formidable, evolutionary change on this planet."
Nobody has ever said anything remotely suggestive of that, so keep your sarcasm out if this.
If the Foxwashing is as pervasive throughout the country as I have seen here, America is doomed to go the way of all great empires, but much faster.