Warming Ocean Could Melt Ice Faster Than Thought

WASHINGTON — Warming air from climate change isn't the only thing that will speed ice melting near the poles – so will the warming water beneath the ice, a new study points out.

Increased melting of ice in Greenland and parts of Antarctica has been reported as a consequence of global warming, potentially raising sea levels. But little attention has been paid to the impact of warmer water beneath the ice.

Now, Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona and colleagues report the warming water could mean polar ice melting faster than had been expected. Their report was published Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

While melting floating ice won't raise sea level, ice flowing into the sea from glaciers often reaches the bottom, and grounded ice melted by warm water around it can produce added water to the sea.

"Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming because water has a much larger heat capacity than air," Yin explained. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

In addition, Yin explained, if floating ice along the coastal areas melts it will allow the flow of glaciers to accelerate, bringing more ice into the seas.

"This mean that both Greenland and Antarctica are probably going to melt faster than the scientific community previously thought," co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck said in a statement.

Overpeck, co-director of the University of Arizona's Institute of the Environment, said: "This paper adds to the evidence that we could have sea level rise by the end of this century of around 1 meter and a good deal more in succeeding centuries."

The subsurface ocean along the Greenland coast could warm as much as 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 Celsius) by 2100, the researchers reported. The warming along the coast of Antarctica would be somewhat less, they calculated, at 0.9 degree F (0.5 C).

Comments

[StephenBP]

09:11 AM on 07/23/2011

“How To Win People to Your Point of View “ by Christ the First
1. Start your blog with a sentence containing six critical derogatory words, and four derogatory phrases, all criticizing your opponents. That will show them just how mad you are and might scare them into your point of view.
2. Constantly cite discredited, un-credentialed, extremist, bought points of view. This will show that you have been soundly grasped by the opinion leaders of the world’s biggest industry.
3. Ignore any reference to the observed phenomenon such as glacier or ice pack retreat so that people will know that you are addressing the issues of most interest to yourself head on.
4. Ignore any reference to the basic principles of science, so people will know that you are well versed in other subjects.
5. When you get frustrated, throw out political epithets.
6. Require that people swallow your entire world view at the same time.
7. Repeat these steps time after time until your opponents have wasted days of their valuable time trying to educate you. Your persistence will earn you all the respect that a Monty Python Black Knight deserves.

[Chris 1]

12:43 PM on 07/21/2011

The HP agw whining site is getting even more sad sack by the day, same junk science headlines rotting on the vine.

Here's a story;

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/07/19/nasas-inconvenient-ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/

Years of data obstruction from the consensus, finally the admitting that the surface records are for crap as so many have known for years. Another reason the whole agw pipe dream of a human inprint should and is being thrown out of serious public attention.

[jimboy71]

07:48 PM on 07/21/2011

Yet the science remains robust, and you are still here, top loading threads incapable of addressing it, using op ed pieces in biased magazines to make your petty little arguments.

1. Is it not true the entire denial movement is born out of TASSC, which developed a strategy to discredit anti-tobacco science? With notes please.

2. Do you still deny the physics of CO2? What about the downward IR properties of said molecule?

3. NASA disagrees with you. Which surface records? How about this summer Chris? Hottest on record, just wait and see.

[Chris 1]

10:01 AM on 07/22/2011

Talk about a "tin foil" hat Jimboob.

Why not focus on the real story;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/21/thank-the-gods-for-climategate/#more-43850

[MGhamma]

08:43 PM on 07/21/2011

What a stinky pile of nonsense you've provided there chris.

Funny how bell doesn't provide any links to back up his outlandish claims.

And refering to "climategate" as if it hadn't been shown to be a manufactured fantasy.

And Watts? What's up wi dat?

Peeyew!

[Publicola]

01:59 PM on 07/15/2011

National Academy of Sciences, 2010
----------­­­--------­-­-­------­--­--­----­---­---­--­----­----­­-----­----­-

What Is Known About Climate Change

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documentin­­­g that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities­­­, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidificat­­­ion. Individual­­­ly and collective­­­ly, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmen­­­tal systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­­­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternativ­­­e explanatio­­­ns.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

[physics845]

10:48 AM on 07/15/2011

The truth is that the ocean temperatures are falling rapidly. Data from the AMSR government satellite records that ocean temperatures through to March this year show a distinct drop in temperature. The opposite to what the alarmist lobby would have us believe.

[Publicola]

12:31 PM on 07/15/2011

Yeah man, whatever you say.

Hey physics845­,

You have described yourself as a "climate physicist". [1]

And yet, you evidently don't know/under­­­stand the Laws of Thermodyna­­­mics - which are among the most fundamenta­l laws of physics and chemistry -- and moreover deny the Greenhouse Effect, which is scientific fact. [2]

Imagine that.

What exactly do you do as a "climate physicist"­­­, physics845­­­?

And in any event, link to reputable primary sources that support your unsupported claim above (and no, links to science denier blogs and/or obscure non-primary sources do not count); thanks.

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

{1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/how-to-talk-to-climate-sk_b_810078_75047237.html

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/how-to-talk-to-climate-sk_b_810078_75025592.html

[gallon]

03:44 PM on 07/15/2011

physics845: "The truth is that the ocean temperatur­es are falling rapidly."


No they aren't. Of all the incoming excess energy contributing to global warming, some 90% or so is absorbed by the seas.

[Cindy M Brito]

07:34 PM on 07/11/2011

I have a question for one of my friends here; Gallon, Pharos, Reed, Jimboy etc. If the ocean rises, is it true that volcanos can be more sensitive to erupt due to the stress it creates on the subduction zones?

[jimboy71]

10:35 PM on 07/11/2011

I answered this in detail, but it seems to have been raptured.

The short answer is maybe.

[ReedYoung]

01:35 PM on 07/12/2011

I agree with Jim -- solid "maybe."

Volcanoes erupt when the upward pressure from below exceeds the downward pressure from the gravitational force on the mass above -- rock, dirt, and any solid or liquid water. So it's certainly conceivable that lessening the downward force changes the equilibrium -- that much is indisputable, in fact.

The question is whether the geologic sensitivity to the loss of ice mass is enough to make a relevant difference, and I just don't know enough about geology to say. I do recall that some said ;-) that the recent volcanic activity in Iceland could be due to loss of, ahem, ice. I don't remember who, and I didn't look into it, because I don't think it's among the most important side effects of climate change either way, simply because the loss of ice mass will only make a difference in places that already have significant activity. But that's also not an expert opinion, it's just my order of magnitude estimate, based on the weight of rock and dirt in the crust being so great, that for the loss of ice mass to make the difference, the region already must be close to the threshold at which an eruption occurs.

Clear as mud?

Here is an expert, who I'm pretty sure mentions at some point in this lecture, vulcanism increasing due to massive melting caused by greenhouse warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tLMXoZ_PF4

[Cindy M Brito]

02:38 PM on 07/12/2011

Thanks again Reed. You have a library of info. I couldnt find any definitive answers in my own research due to the fact that there most likely is not a certain answer. Subduction zones are where we can find most of the globe's volcanoes. Thus my question came from the probability of the oceanic crust getting significantly heavier due to rises in sea level. Some geologists believe that would be enough to 'set off' volcanoes in some areas.

[chrisd3]

08:26 AM on 07/11/2011

LaDairis claims that the British court certified "ANTARCTIC ICE GROWTH."

This one is even simpler.

There is no such "certification" in the decision. It simply does not exist, nor does anything even remotely similar exist. Interested readers are invited to view the decision and search for "antarctic".

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

It appears three times, and in no case is there any mention whatsoever of Antarctic ice growth.

What LaDairis claims simply is not there. It is 100% false.

[Publicola]

11:25 AM on 07/11/2011

Moreover and as NASA explains:

"The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002."

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/416685main_20100108_Climate_1.jpg

[chrisd3]

11:54 AM on 07/11/2011

Pub, what you say is undeniably true, but he/she/it can just claim (without evidence, of course) that it's a FRAUD and FUDGED.

What I wanted to show was that the court simply did not say what he has repeatedly claimed it said.

There's no fudging that. :)

[Publicola]

01:38 PM on 07/11/2011

Fully agreed Chris, and thanks for doing that.

Why HuffPo has continued to allow LaDairis to repeatedly spam repeatedly-debunked outright falsehoods in these threads and with seeming impunity (save for the removal of about half of them) is something of a mystery to me - perhaps HuffPo is more interested in page views than it is in enforcing its own policies.

[chrisd3]

08:19 AM on 07/11/2011

LaDairis claims that a British court "certified" that there is no "NO CO2-TEMPER­ATURE CORRELATIO­N".

But the British court made no such "certification". Interested readers can quickly and easily verify this for themselves by reading the two sentences that comprise section 28 of the decision:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

The judge does NOT rule that there is "NO CO2-TEMPERATURE CONNECTION." He states, in fact, the precise opposite:

"[T]here is general scientific agreement that there is a connection...."

All he says is that the graph shown in the film is insufficient to establish the connection that Al Gore claims in the film (which, by the way, is what this decision is about--it is NOT a decision on climate science). That is the full extent of everything the decision says about CO2 and temperature.

LaDairis's claim is simply untrue, as anyone with 30 seconds to spare can see for himself.

[Publicola]

01:55 AM on 07/11/2011

Climate scientist Dr. Barry Bickmore, who is also an active Republican­:

Climate science deniers are "enemies of democracy".

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

I’ve recently been involved with other scientists and scholars in Utah trying to stop the spread of outright lies, half-truth­s, abuses of data, and distortion­s about climate change. Much of this disinforma­tion is coming from (or through) some Republican members of the Utah Legislatur­e, and the other Republican (and some Democratic­) members have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker...

In addition, I’m a Republican myself, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientific­ally incompeten­t trash. In my opinion, something has to be done to save the party from disaster in the long run...

Democracy depends on accurate informatio­n being readily available to the public, and I see people who propagate such disinforma­tion campaigns as enemies of Democracy.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/

[Pharos]

12:11 AM on 07/11/2011

You have accused scientists of fraud. I have repeatedly asked you to prove it by showing raw satellite data and the fudged data and you have failed to produce the data. The reason you can't is because there is no fraud. If you had access to fudged data you would have displayed it long ago.

You don't know how satellites take measurements, you don't know what raw data looks like, you don't know how raw measurements are used to obtain data used used in research (climate or otherwise). I'm reasonably certain you have no idea what the satellites are actually measuring and and it's clear you have no clue how those measurements are converted to something useful.

Furthermore if the data were fudged, you would have no idea how to detect it.

Those are the reasons you have not provided evidence of fraud.

Your complete ignorance of everything science is obvious to every scientist reading your comments. I suspect that, by now, it's also obvious to nearly everyone else. I'm not sure, but I even think it's obvious to you.

[chrisd3]

07:57 AM on 07/11/2011

As has been repeatedly pointed out:

The British court did not "out" scientists for fraud. It did not accuse scientists of fraud. It did not even contemplate any scientific fraud. It said nothing whatever about scientific fraud. Not one word. Not one syllable.

[gallon]

12:14 AM on 07/11/2011

The simple reality of the situation is that your posts are canned for your pathological behavior. Once again, read the guidlines for making posts. Compare yourself to what you read there.

The science of anthropogenic global warming stands, stronger than ever before. Curiously, the stronger the science becomes, the more shrill become the deniers.

[LaDairis]

07:33 AM on 07/11/2011

By "science" you must mean "left wingers lying in unison who were TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL THE BRITISH COURT RULING CERTIFYING ANTARCTIC ICE GROWTH AND NO CO2-TEMPERATURE CORRELATION..."

[ILoveFiction]

09:26 PM on 07/10/2011

Scrabble game starting up.

First word is "fudge."

[Publicola]

09:56 PM on 07/10/2011

Second word is "fraud" with a double-word score.

[LaDairis]

11:02 PM on 07/10/2011

Algore's FRAUD consists of FUDGE and nothing but FUDGE... and never had anything except FUDGE...

[Pharos]

11:06 PM on 07/10/2011

Where's the raw data, where's the fudge? why is it so hard for you to show us the original plus fudge factors.

next scrabble word "raw"

[Publicola]

01:20 AM on 07/11/2011

Flagged for idiotic trolling,

Again.

[realpolitic]

02:35 AM on 07/10/2011

"Australian government plans for a carbon tax and emissions trade scheme won't hurt the country's strong jobs growth, Treasurer Wayne Swan said on Tuesday, following warnings by the resource sector and the opposition that the policy could hit jobs."

"Swan said modeling by Treasury officials, based on a A$20 a metric tone carbon price, found aggregate employment levels would remain much the same with or without a price on carbon emissions."

"The government wants to set a carbon tax on 1,000 of the biggest polluting companies from July 2012 in order to fight global warming, with a move to an emissions trading scheme three to five years later."


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-australia-carbon-swan-idUSTRE7560J420110607

[Publicola]

11:03 AM on 07/10/2011

Flagged.

[jimboy71]

12:54 PM on 07/10/2011

Flagged.

[realpolitic]

05:13 PM on 07/10/2011

Oh no, you have discovered yet another fraud.

[Publicola]

05:21 PM on 07/10/2011

You want FRAUD, LaDairis?

Here, learn about FRAUD - documented FRAUD by Willie Soon, speaker at the HEARTLAND INSTITUTE conference:

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

How Soon is now?

Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate ‘debate’..­. He was a recent speaker... at the 2011 Heartland Institute conference­, and can be counted on to produce a contrarian take on any particular issue that anyone might care about – ranging from climate, to mercury in fish and polar bear population dynamics.

Recently, there has been a renewed focus on how much money Willie Soon has taken from fossil fuel companies for his ‘research’ (over a $1 million dollars). While that is impressive­, the real issue is not how he gets paid, but the quality of his science...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now/

[Exusian]

11:45 AM on 07/09/2011

Looks like we have a new record low Arctic sea ice extent for this date:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Hmmm, and what's the NOAA north pole webcam showing this morning....
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0709-011540.jpg

Yep, that still looks like an open lead in the distance to me.

[LaDairis]

12:00 PM on 07/09/2011

Antarctic Sea Ice set a new all time high in Sept 2010. Did that "prove" CO2 is cooling the planet?

Meanwhile, 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is court certified increasing, proving there has been no net ice melt on Earth since Algore's FRAUD began.

Then again, one Earth polar circle has 9 times the ice of the other, right now. How did the recent increase in atmospheric CO2, that didn't warm the atmosphere, cause that??

[Dardedar]

12:42 PM on 07/09/2011

LA: "Antarctic Sea Ice... new all time high">>

Denier canard #10:

"Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice."

http://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

LA: "90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is court certified increasing­,">>

a) see above
b) science isn't done in "court"
c) you are misstating the case in question anyway

LA: "no net ice melt on Earth">>

Let's ask NASA:

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005."
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

LA: "one Earth polar circle has 9 times the ice of the other,">>

You have yet to show how this has relevance, to anything.

[Publicola]

01:12 PM on 07/09/2011

LaDairis: "90% of Earth ice on Antarctica is court certified increasing"

Flagged for endless repetition of science denier idiocy.

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

NASA: The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/416685main_20100108_Climate_1.jpg

[Orkneygal]

03:54 AM on 07/09/2011

Have Alarmists in Australia crossed the line?

Australian children are being terrified by climate change lessons

PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.

....psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health.

http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-kids-are-living-in-climate-of-fear/story-e6frfkvr-1226091097398

[ClimateHawk]

09:11 AM on 07/09/2011

"Have Alarmists in Australia crossed the line?"

It's not clear if anybody has crossed a line; the article does not illustrate what the children are being taught.

Lots of Australian children live in areas that have been hit very hard by droughts and floods. It would not be surprising if they are worried.

[Orkneygal]

09:40 PM on 07/09/2011

Example of Australian Government material for little nippers-

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/what-you-can-do/teachers-and-students.aspx

Floods and droughts in Australia have nothing to do with climate change-

"I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains."

From My Country, by Dorothea Mackellar,Circa 1908

[jimboy71]

09:34 AM on 07/09/2011

In other news, we drop bombs on people, children included, for oil. I guess a few lessons about climate change are a lot worse, right?

[Orkneygal]

09:21 PM on 07/09/2011

"we drop bombs on people, children included, for oil."

What terrible behaviour! Are you a member of a criminal organisation?

[Dardedar]

12:58 AM on 07/09/2011

Looks like another hockeystick:

"A group of colleagues have succeeded in producing the first continuous proxy record of sea level for the past 2000 years. According to this reconstruction, 20th-Century sea-level rise on the U.S. Atlantic coast is faster than at any time in the past two millennia."

See chart and article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/

[jimboy71]

09:37 AM on 07/09/2011

Flagged for invoking Godwin's Law and smearing Dr. Mann.

[toxicity]

09:38 AM on 07/09/2011

Your link is nothing more than a pinch of fudge.

[ReedYoung]

12:13 AM on 07/09/2011

Pat Michaels admits: '40 percent' of funding comes from big oil.

Fareed Zakaria forgot to ask him, "and how much from coal?"