Earth is losing ice faster today than in the mid-1990s, study suggests

By Yereth Rosen

 

FILE PHOTO: Floating ice is seen during the expedition of the The Greenpeace's Arctic Sunrise ship at the Arctic Ocean, September 14, 2020. REUTERS/Natalie Thomas/File Photo

 

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Earth’s ice is melting faster today than in the mid-1990s, new research suggests, as climate change nudges global temperatures ever higher.

 

Altogether, an estimated 28 trillion metric tons of ice have melted away from the world’s sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers since the mid-1990s. Annually, the melt rate is now about 57 percent faster than it was three decades ago, scientists report in a study published Monday in the journal The Cryosphere.

 

“It was a surprise to see such a large increase in just 30 years,” said co-author Thomas Slater, a glaciologist at Leeds University in Britain.

 

While the situation is clear to those depending on mountain glaciers for drinking water, or relying on winter sea ice to protect coastal homes from storms, the world’s ice melt has begun to grab attention far from frozen regions, Slater noted.

 

Aside from being captivated by the beauty of polar regions, “people do recognize that, although the ice is far away, the effects of the melting will be felt by them,” he said.

 

The melting of land ice – on Antarctica, Greenland and mountain glaciers – added enough water to the ocean during the three-decade time period to raise the average global sea level by 3.5 centimeters. Ice loss from mountain glaciers accounted for 22 percent of the annual ice loss totals, which is noteworthy considering it accounts for only about 1 percent of all land ice atop land, Slater said.

 

Across the Arctic, sea ice is also shrinking to new summertime lows. Last year saw the second-lowest sea ice extent in more than 40 years of satellite monitoring. As sea ice vanishes, it exposes dark water which absorbs solar radiation, rather than reflecting it back out of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, boosts regional temperatures even further.

 

The global atmospheric temperature has risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times. But in the Arctic, the warming rate has been more than twice the global average in the last 30 years.

 

Using 1994–2017 satellite data, site measurements and some computer simulations, the team of British scientists calculated that the world was losing an average of 0.8 trillion metric tons of ice per year in the 1990s, but about 1.2 trillion metric tons annually in recent years.

 

Calculating even an estimated ice loss total from the world’s glaciers, ice sheets and polar seas is “a really interesting approach, and one that’s actually quite needed,” said geologist Gabriel Wolken with the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Wolken was a co-author on the 2020 Arctic Report Card released in December, but was not involved with the new study.

 

In Alaska, people are “keenly aware” of glacial ice loss, Wolken said. “You can see the changes with the human eye.”

 

Research scientist Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado noted the study had not included snow cover over land, "which also has a strong albedo feedback”, referring to a measure of how reflective a surface is.

 

The research also did not consider river or lake ice or permafrost, except to say that “these elements of the cryosphere have also experienced considerable change over recent decades.”

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-01-25

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Hopefully, with a new administration in the US, the world will get back to dealing with global warming.  No more denying it's happening.

55 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Hopefully, with a new administration in the US, the world will get back to dealing with global warming.  No more denying it's happening.

While I'm all for for finding new ways to sustain the environment, energy production etc.I think we have already gone beyond the point of being able to stop rising temperatures let alone being able to reverse it. I'm not suggesting doom and gloom here, far from it, but our needs and wants demand increase in 'this & that' and so demand/supply outpaces the technology we need to produce the goods in an environmentally friendly way. I think countries should come to together and develop strategies but with all the other types of conflict in the world, imo, some don't see GW as top priority. It is difficult to get some to understand that it isn't the planet that is at risk, it is our existence that's on the line, as it were.

Here we go again.

 

And yet there are more polar bears! https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

4 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

And yet there are more polar bears! https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

Clearly, you didn't read the article. Here's the very first answer in the article:

 

"One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*"

There's also a reference to this article:

Magic Number: a Sketchy "Fact" About Polar Bears Keeps Going...And Going... And Going

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

It was really cold here the other day. Must be global yawning.

3 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

It was really cold here the other day. Must be global yawning.

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere but you haven't managed to extract it.

Just now, placeholder said:

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere but you haven't managed to extract it.

No joke there. Anyone else out think that global warming could well be true, but they just don’t care. That’s me.

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Clearly, you didn't read the article. Here's the very first answer in the article:

 

"One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*"

There's also a reference to this article:

Magic Number: a Sketchy "Fact" About Polar Bears Keeps Going...And Going... And Going

https://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

Perhaps VoacalNeal saw this 

but didn't see this https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/polar-bear-population-decline-a-wake-up-call-for-climate-change-action

44 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

Here we go again.

 

Yeah, a topic Trump supporters can't stand.  Don't understand why though.  I guess it's like covid deniers, many who are also Trump supporters?

7 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

No joke there. Anyone else out think that global warming could well be true, but they just don’t care. That’s me.

Extremely selfish.

15 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

No joke there. Anyone else out think that global warming could well be true, but they just don’t care. That’s me.

Thanks for sharing your feelings.

6 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Extremely selfish.

Definitely.....and I don’t care.

1 minute ago, AndyFoxy said:

Definitely.....and I don’t care.

Lovely chap. ????

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Lovely chap. ????

Cheers 

19 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Perhaps VoacalNeal saw this 

but didn't see this https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/polar-bear-population-decline-a-wake-up-call-for-climate-change-action

Yeah, this is what I've been reading also.  Sad some don't care about what's happening.  Or fall for fake news about climate change.

 

From your article:

 

Today’s study, published in Ecological Applications, analyzed data on polar bears in northeast Alaska and the Northwest Territories and documented a 40 percent population loss between 2001-2010 from 1,500 to 900 bears.

4 minutes ago, mr mr said:

 

someone will be along to debunk your link with a super awesome link of their own. 

 

 

No.  Just report it as being a conspiracy theory.  No need to reply to junk like this.  Sad some fall for these fake news sites.

'Suggests' seems very understated.

32 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

 

Good. Discussion about truth is healthy. One sided is not.

Supported by good evidence, yes. Without that, it's just bloviating.

A post linking to pseudoscience conspiracy website has been removed also replies

2 hours ago, AndyFoxy said:

It was really cold here the other day. Must be global yawning.

I think you really need to do/read some actual science. That is, what is actually happening...after that then form an interpretation and opinion.

The fact is this. As currents of warming winds reach the Arctic Vortex some of the cold air gets pushed southward. The warm winds don't simply mix with cold air and form a slightly raised temperature equilibrium, it doesn't work that way. The cold air that is pushed southward and causes cold weather in some regions; but this will only happen while there is a cold north. If/when the vortex is no longer cold then cold weather further south will stop and temperatures will increase. The debatable part is whether that warm air interference is natural or not, or, both natural and athropogenically enhanced.

So, how many volcanoes have erupted in the last while?  You do know that every eruption

messes up the atmosphere and sends lots of gases into it as well.

  I just wish the real scientists would be allowed to get the real message across,

and not the pretend ones.

Geezer

7 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

So, how many volcanoes have erupted in the last while?  You do know that every eruption

messes up the atmosphere and sends lots of gases into it as well.

  I just wish the real scientists would be allowed to get the real message across,

and not the pretend ones.

Geezer

You mean these real scientists?

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

2 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Yeah, a topic Trump supporters can't stand.  Don't understand why though.  I guess it's like covid deniers, many who are also Trump supporters?

Yes...it is easier to comprehend if you understand that it is a "package"-not just limited to one subject.

The world should hold responsible those who pollute the most:

China

India

Mexico

Let them show the way in reduced greenhouse emissions.

19 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

The world should hold responsible those who pollute the most:

China

India

Mexico

Let them show the way in reduced greenhouse emissions.

 

 

2 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

So, how many volcanoes have erupted in the last while?  You do know that every eruption

messes up the atmosphere and sends lots of gases into it as well.

  I just wish the real scientists would be allowed to get the real message across,

and not the pretend ones.

Geezer

Strictly speaking, this comes under geophysical pollution rather than tropospheric. Having said that it is no less important because the Earth's crust itself is changing as for example, the Australian plate is moving northwards. Volcanoes can erupt when the lithosphere and asthenosphere are subject to subduction but, as far as I know, there is no substantial evidence that tropospheric activity directly is responsible (underground testing?). [There is a lot geoscience going on in Australia because it contains a very small population compared to its size yet physiologically it's a very active place. This means that at sometime any one of Australia's dead volcanoes might erupt adding to atmospheric pollution.]

But if are going to include volcanic eruptions into the GW 'equation' we need also to consider the Earth's Astronomical situation too because this a plays a large part in climate change.

So with all of this to consider, it isn't that scientists are not 'allowed to get the message across' it's because they too have different interpretations (they are human after all, Ha!).

5 hours ago, AndyFoxy said:

Definitely.....and I don’t care.

The most truthful post I've read on this thread Andy. More logic and truth please.

 

The history of the Earth shows that it's been considerably hotter and considerably colder.

 

If the polar bear's land is getting smaller, why not take a few to the south pole and let them start up a new colony? 

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

The most truthful post I've read on this thread Andy. More logic and truth please.

 

The history of the Earth shows that it's been considerably hotter and considerably colder.

 

If the polar bear's land is getting smaller, why not take a few to the south pole and let them start up a new colony? 

Clueless.