This is a press release from OSU, home of Dr. Lonnie Thompson. The press releases from there, written by Earle Holland, tend to be a bit excitable. For example, here’s one from just before COP16. Mr. Holland loves those all bold headlines. I invite readers to come up with other examples of “filling” based on regular melt as usual in other places.
What is most missing here is historical context. Howat is correct about snapshots, this press release is based on one about 10 years long, which is a blip in the history of the glaciers there. What they don’t have are comparative snapshots of the same data though 50-100-200-1000 years ago, so they can’t and don’t say if this is unusual or business as usual behavior for these glaciers in their long history.
TWO GREENLAND GLACIERS LOSE ENOUGH ICE TO FILL LAKE ERIE
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study aimed at refining the way scientists measure ice loss in Greenland is providing a “high-definition picture” of climate-caused changes on the island.
And the picture isn’t pretty.
In the last decade, two of the largest three glaciers draining that frozen landscape have lost enough ice that, if melted, could have filled Lake Erie.
The three glaciers – Helheim, Kangerdlugssuaq and Jakobshavn Isbrae – are responsible for as much as one-fifth of the ice flowing out from Greenland into the ocean.
![]() |
|
Ian Howat
|
“Jakobshavn alone drains somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of all the ice flowing outward from inland to the sea,” explained Ian Howat, an assistant professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University. His study appears in the current issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
As the second largest holder of ice on the planet, and the site of hundreds of glaciers, Greenland is a natural laboratory for studying how climate change has affected these ice fields.
Researchers focus on the “mass balance” of glaciers, the rate of new ice being formed as snow falls versus the flow of ice out into the sea.
The new study suggests that, in the last decade, Jakobshavn Isbrae has lost enough ice to equal 11 years’ worth of normal snow accumulation, approximately 300 gigatons (300 billion tons) of ice.
“Kangerdlugssuaq would have to stop flowing and accumulate snowfall for seven years to regain the ice it has lost,” said Howat, also a member of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State.
Surprisingly, the researchers found that the third glacier, Helheim, had actually gained a small amount of mass over the same period. It gained approximately one-fifteenth of what Jakobshavn had lost, Howat said.
The real value of the research, however, is the confirmation that the new techniques Howat and his colleagues developed will provide scientists a more accurate idea of exactly how much ice is being lost.
|
Past estimates, he said, have been merely snapshots of what was going on at these glaciers in terms of mass loss. “We really need to sample them very frequently or else we won’t really know how much change has occurred. “This new research pumps up the resolution and gives us a kind of high-definition picture of ice loss,” Howat said. |
“These glaciers change pretty quickly. They speed up and then slow down. There’s a pulsing in the flow of ice,” Howat said. “There’s variability, a seasonal cycle and lots of different changes in the rate that ice is flowing through these glaciers.”
Past estimates, he said, have been merely snapshots of what was going on at these glaciers in terms of mass loss. “We really need to sample them very frequently or else we won’t really know how much change has occurred.
“This new research pumps up the resolution and gives us a kind of high-definition picture of ice loss,” he said.
To get this longer-timeframe image, Howat and colleagues drew on data sets provided by at least seven orbiting satellites and airplanes, as well as other sources.
“To get a good picture of what’s going on, we need different tools and each one of these satellites plays an important role and adds more information,” Howat said.
The next step is to look at the next-largest glaciers in Greenland and work their way down through smaller and smaller ice flows.
“Currently, the missing piece is ice thickness data for all of the glaciers, but a NASA aircraft is up there getting it. When that’s available, we’ll be able to apply this technique to the entire Greenland ice sheet and get a monthly total mass balance for the last 10 years or so,” he said.
Along with Howat, Yushin Ahn, a postdoctoral fellow at Ohio State’s Byrd Polar Research Center; Ian Joughin of the University of Washington; Michael van den Broeke and Jan Lenaerts, both of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, worked on the project.
The work is supported in part by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and by the Climate, Water and Carbon Program at Ohio State.
#
Contact: Ian Howat, (614) 247-8944; Howat.4@osu.edu
Written by Earle Holland, (614) 292-8384; Holland.8@osu.edu


Dr. Lonnie Thompson is passionate about the melting of the glaciers and has a helpful non-scientific explanation of the greenhouse effect…
“The relatively mild temperatures of the past 10,000 years have been maintained by the greenhouse effect, a natural phenomenon. As orbital forcing brought the last ice age to an end, the oceans warmed, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, where it trapped infrared energy reflected from the earth’s surface. This warmed the planet. The greenhouse effect is a natural, self-regulating process that is absolutely essential to sustain life on the planet. However, it is not immutable. Change the level of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere, and the planet heats up or cools down.”
The orbital forcing ends the ice age and warms the oceans which release CO2. The CO2 then traps infrared energy from the earth’s surface and warms the planet.
Why don’t the warming oceans warm the planet?
@ur momisuglyWill Nelson says:
May 25, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“@ur momisugly Gary Swift:
Notwithstanding Lake Erie being the SI unit of measure, the referenced Greenland ice loss if melted could have filled (116 mi^3/2900 mi ^3) 4%!! of Lake Superior.”
Yeah, I don’t understand these new-fangled “Lake Erie” (LE) SI units.
I’m used to good ol’ fashioned Uh-mercan Units (UUs) like:
“Feet Manhatten Is Under Water” (FMIUW) or
“Olympic Swimming Pools” (OSP) or
“Football Stadiums” (FS) or
“Pickup Truck Beds” (PTB).
You know… the common, everyday units used by the man on the street.
;o)
Anthony said:
“I invite readers to come up with other examples of “filling” based on regular melt as usual in other places”
How about:
The Detroit River has enough flow to fill Lake Erie?
or
The Mississippi in flood can fill a large sports stadium in just a few seconds
I’ve always been partial to the universal unit of volume, the ‘Olympic Sized Swimming Pool’
Steve R,
The standard unit of measure in Oz is the Sydarb, or Sydney harbour, (harbor in Americano)
I believe your ice density is high by about 10%; those are the figures for water. And, BION, ice floats in water! 😉
Probably incorrect snow fall estimates produce the inconsistent mass balance results, if their estimates of berg volumes are correct.
Another experiment with ‘iffy’ estimates.
15,000 years ago, what is now Cleveland, Ohio on the south shore of the depression that what would become Lake Erie was covered by a one mile thick (ONE MILE) layer of snow and ice — a glacier. And when it melted it filled Lake Erie. And Lake Ontario and Lake Michigan and Lake Superior and Lake Huron.
The situation is blindingly obvious: Who sponsored the project? NASA. How did they do it? NASA airplanes and satellites. On the road in the search for relevance (funding) they provide new tools (toys) to researchers also on the same road with predictable results, proving the need for many more years of funding. As usual they find one cherry-picked example, which if you squint real real hard, might just look like an important result. Everyone, including the researchers, know that when the long-term big-picture results are available, they will find many devils in the details and prove nothing more or less than that they knew a lot less about the behavior of these glaciers than they thought they knew. The unknown unknowns as it were.
OTOH, nothing wrong with quality scientific research. Selling it like used cars is a little tawdry though.
There was a Letter in Nature October 2009(if my memory is correct), where it was stated that an ice core study of the previous interglacial ie the Eemian, suggested that Antarctic temperatures then might have been as much as 6°C higher than now and not the 3°C warmer that is currently assumed to be the case.
Whichever is true, the ice did not melt, so we need not worry too much about our current 0.73° warming.