University of Leeds

Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than in the 1990s and is tracking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s high-end climate warming scenario, which would see 40 million more people exposed to coastal flooding by 2100.
A team of 96 polar scientists from 50 international organisations have produced the most complete picture of Greenland ice loss to date. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) Team combined 26 separate surveys to compute changes in the mass of Greenland’s ice sheet between 1992 and 2018. Altogether, data from 11 different satellite missions were used, including measurements of the ice sheet’s changing volume, flow and gravity.
The findings, published today in Nature today, show that Greenland has lost 3.8 trillion tonnes of ice since 1992 – enough to push global sea levels up by 10.6 millimetres. The rate of ice loss has risen from 33 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s to 254 billion tonnes per year in the last decade – a seven-fold increase within three decades.
The assessment, led by Professor Andrew Shepherd at the University of Leeds and Dr Erik Ivins at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, was supported by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that global sea levels will rise by 60 centimetres by 2100, putting 360 million people at risk of annual coastal flooding. But this new study shows that Greenland’s ice losses are rising faster than expected and are instead tracking the IPCC’s high-end climate warming scenario, which predicts 7 centimetres more.
Professor Shepherd said: “As a rule of thumb, for every centimetre rise in global sea level another six million people are exposed to coastal flooding around the planet.”
“On current trends, Greenland ice melting will cause 100 million people to be flooded each year by the end of the century, so 400 million in total due to all sea level rise.”
“These are not unlikely events or small impacts; they are happening and will be devastating for coastal communities.”
The team also used regional climate models to show that half of the ice losses were due to surface melting as air temperatures have risen. The other half has been due to increased glacier flow, triggered by rising ocean temperatures.
Ice losses peaked at 335 billion tonnes per year in 2011 – ten times the rate of the 1990s – during a period of intense surface melting. Although the rate of ice loss dropped to an average 238 billion tonnes per year since then, this remains seven times higher and does not include all of 2019, which could set a new high due to widespread summer melting.
Dr Ivins said: “Satellite observations of polar ice are essential for monitoring and predicting how climate change could affect ice losses and sea level rise”.
“While computer simulation allows us to make projections from climate change scenarios, the satellite measurements provide prima facie, rather irrefutable, evidence.”
“Our project is a great example of the importance of international collaboration to tackle problems that are global in scale.”
Guðfinna Aðalgeirsdóttir, Professor of Glaciology at the University of Iceland and lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment report, who was not involved in the study, said:
“The IMBIE Team’s reconciled estimate of Greenland ice loss is timely for the IPCC. Their satellite observations show that both melting and ice discharge from Greenland have increased since observations started.”
“The ice caps in Iceland had similar reduction in ice loss in the last two years of their record, but this last summer was very warm here and resulted in higher loss. I would expect a similar increase in Greenland mass loss for 2019.”
“It is very important to keep monitoring the big ice sheets to know how much they raise sea level every year.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s high time for this bunch of clowns to migrate to Antarctica.
Heads up !
I always worry about rising sea level. I live in Colorado at 6,670 feet above sea level. Hope our house doesn’t get washed away.
You poor soul Littlepeaks. Living so high you can’t boil water at high enough temperature to get a decent cup of coffee. This predicted sea level rise should benefit your tastebuds mightily.
Outside of computer models, in the real world there continues to be ZERO evidence for any actual sea level rise relative to coastlines – the only kind that matters.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/05/cartology-affirms-relative-sea-levels-were-the-same-or-higher-than-now-during-the-little-ice-age/
I simply do not believe the sea level rise fairy tale. The number of people who will be flooded by sea level rise by 2100, is zero.
No longer do these attention-getting claims need scientific substantiation or data. Nor examination of the tools used to harvest that data, nor how those tools are callibrated. Nor do such studies admit any room for error. Throw them in the hopper and out comes the quik-mix for another batch of climate paranoia.
Happy holidays.
That’s a lovely image though!
Save the elephants!
Anything remotely connected to climate change is always happening faster than expected. I would suspect that if we added up all the reports of events happening faster than expected, every doomsday scenario ever proffered would already have been surpassed ten times over.
-Find a long water level gauge in the Atlantic.
-Look at periodicity.
-And reflect.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=040-221
Bergen is close, Cuxhaven is long:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=140-012
“Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than in the 1990s and is tracking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s high-end climate warming scenario.”
This statement, taken at face value, tells you that climate scientists don’t know what is going on with either the climate, or the Greenland ice sheet. We’re not experiencing the IPCC’s high end warming scenario. If the Greenland ice sheet is behaving in a way that the IPCC thought would happen under a much, much greater rate of warming, then observations do not match theory, and the only conclusion is that the future state of the Greenland ice sheet cannot be reliably predicted because, to date, it has not been reliably predicted.
Why are those numbers from the Nature article not put in perspective, not even here by WUWT? Mean ice loss in the recent decades is about 0.02 percent of the total amount. And the additional sea level rise in case meltng continues at this rate till the end of the century is only a few centimeters.
wher ?
?ssl=1
KJG, thank you for posting this. I also recently captured these graphs. I note that the current ice accumulation data (blue line for the 2019-2020 period, which started 9-1-2019) has recently been above the mean for the 1981-2010 period. This means to me that the current capability of the Greenland ice sheet to accumulate mass is undiminished by the increase in greenhouse gases since earlier decades. If carbon dioxide emissions had a discernible impact on the rates, wouldn’t the accumulation trend be pushed toward the low end of the range? Let’s just see what happens. Sea level rise is not new, and not scary.
Can’t wait for Tony Heller to get his analysis into the voracity of this latest, shrinking Greenland Ice mass story.
I wonder if the authors are aware of the cyclical nature of our climate?
The news reports from early last century may be useful and helpful in establishing the reality of climate variability. They show, what we are so concerned about, sorry that should read, what the alarmists are so concerned about, is nothing new.
I have become a daily reader of Tony Heller’s blog ( search “realclimatescience.com” ). He uses historical reports and raw data to very effectively dismantle the alarmist narrative. I highly recommend his blog to readers here at WUWT.
Ditto.
Guest post: How the Greenland ice sheet fared in 2019 Ruth Mottram et al
“In the past, estimates based on rainfall gauges and temperature observations – usually from weather stations near but not actually on the ice sheet – were made and then extrapolated over a wider area. These days we use a physical approach known as a “surface energy budget method”. This involves adding up all the incoming and outgoing energy for the ice sheet surface – with the difference between them giving an estimate of how warm the surface is. ”
“And using new satellite data, we show that – once all ice sheet processes are factored in for the past year – the Greenland ice sheet saw a net decline of 329bn tonnes in ice.”
–
Amazingly clever how in the past they actually recorded physical data and made estimates but now they do not bother, just tap in the temperature for the day and that gives you the amount of ice gained or lost. No regard for how much snow actually fell in the year. That is unimportant.
–
Then there is this little beauty of conjecture passed as fact.
“However, 2018-19 was another year – and only the seventh occasion in a record going back 2,000 years – where surface melt was recorded at the summit. It really is very unusual to see melting at the summit.”
Seven times in 40 years does not seem that unusual, after all there was nobody on the summit to use their eyeballs for the previous 1960 years? Or did they mean some sort of proxy assessment, in which case it could have been conjectured but not recorded.
–
Finally
“Data from the GRACE satellites indicate that Greenland lost an average of approximately 260bn tonnes of ice per year between 2002 and 2016, with a peak of 458bn in 2012. Clearly, the loss of 329bn tonnes we estimate this year is significantly above the 260bn tonne long-term average, but we have not broken the highest record for ice loss in a year.”
Makes it sound like they were using GRACE satellites to help with their measurements, doesn’t it. No mention that GRACE has been out of action for several years and that there is no way to corroborate the new estimates.
Greenland’s ice is melting – AGAIN??? Gee, and I thought that was normal summer behavior for glaciers.
Well, that might explain why the jet stream decided to pay a visit to my kingdom and dump a walloping bowl full of cold Arctic air on us heathens a little early. We get January weather in December, which nobody wants. The only time I get any kind of globull warming is when the sun is shining through my big bay window, which faces south, and the sun heats up my living room, which means the thermostat says it’s 2 degrees warmer than the setting for the furnace and my solar heating reduces my gas bill by a few therms.
If this were a normal winter, sunlight wouldn’t be quite so intense, would it? Or would it? Hmmmm… now, there’s a good question to ponder.
Just a note: a few years ago, people who live on the island/subcontinent of Greenland were semi-pleased to find that melting ice allowed for rebound of land that had been buried for centuries, including some small islands that seemed “lost” to the world. Part of the natural cycle, isn’t it?
So what was the problem again? Oh, that’s right: the “science guys” have to have money so they write up something with a lot of scare-mongering and send out a begging letter for cash. Business as usual. Which brings up that rather funny scene from ‘Day After Tomorrow’, the “instant ice age’ movie: We have biscuits enough for three weeks. We’ll be fine.
Nothing new to see here. Just another attempt to scare people using propaganda. Moving on.
And just in time for the IPCCCP propaganda-fest.
I look at the DMI pages two or three times per week. Have done for a number of years. All but one weather stations are coastal, or nearly so. The sole interior station has this data for yesterday
EGP 2019-12-11 00:00:00.0
Temperature (°C): -54.73
Windspeed (m/s): 4.69
Incoming Sunshine (W/m²): -0.5
I often wondered about the “Incoming Sunshine” numbers how does – 0.5W/m^2 affect ice against air temperatures.
Again, “faster than expected” = dangerously flawed theory. Another admission the theory is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Greenland’s largest glacier Jacobshavn is thickening and extending for the 4th year in a row since 2016:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2882/jakobshavn-glacier-grows-for-third-straight-year/
In 2016 it reversed from retreat to advance.
The ocean water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier (Disko Bay) are cooling significantly.
If this keeps up then Greenland can be returned to it proper condition of a green and productive land. And what would be wrong with that?
Pure, unadulterated Alarmoscience™. These “scientists” should be ashamed for producing such garbage, tailor-made to alarm, cherry-picking numbers that “sound” alarming, and counting on people who are innumerate to take them at face-value. They then extrapolate their cherry-picked numbers out to 2050, or better yet, 2100 for maximum alarmist effect. It’s always “worse than we thought”, and it’s always mans fault, a double-lie.
I am having a problem with the science here:
3800 gigaton is 0.125% of the icesheet’s total mass of 3 million gigaton. That is within uncertainty of total mass measurements.
DMI has participated in the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) Team and concludes that the inland Ice Sheet “is melting faster than expected”
https://www.dmi.dk/?id=1187
Yet same ice sheet is getting thicker for most of its surface:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
Last ice sheet report describes 6 years of stable conditions:
http://polarportal.dk/en/news/2018-season-report/
“Glaciers have continued the development seen during the last six years in which they have more or less maintained their area”
Whilst the 2018 report itself:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/polarportal-saesonrapport-2018-EN.pdf
The melting season began on 31 May 2018. This is five days later than the median date,
The onset of ablation was on 25 June this year. This is relatively late, 13 days after the median, and the ninth latest date since 1981.
The modelled surface mass balance (SMB) for the 2017-2018 season (September 2017 to August 2018) returned a value of 517 Gt.
Page 4….
2018, a gain of 517 gigaton, 2017 a gain of 544 gigaton, average 1981-2010 a gain of 368 gigaton, hottest summer on record 2012 a gain of 38 gigaton.
Page 6 top, average 2003-2011 was negative 234 gigaton as compared to average 1981-2010 which was positive 368 gigaton.
This way of handling data is at best confusing.
/
Someone is lying here?
Oddgeir
The alarmists do like to hide the real situation in a mass of scary sounding numbers. I’ll try and simplify the situation.
On NOAAs website they have this feature article
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
They highlight this statistic in the text
“The pace of global sea level rise more than doubled from 1.4 mm per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 3.6 mm per year from 2006–2015.”
Scary eh?
Well, elsewhere in the NOAA site you can find the individual US coastal sea level gauge data. This one shows sea level for the oft quoted ‘The Battery’ on the southern tip of Manhatten Island, the longest record.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
A steady mean trend of 2.85mm/annum, I’ll come back to this later. It’s handy that the analogue catch-all of warming is rising sea level, no need to know anything about anything except water finds its own level. No UHI effect, no homogenisation, quite difficult to cook the books, but I’ll come back to this too.
Now, with knowledge of the average air temperature over this period, I can persuade myself I can just about see this reflected in the gauge trends, but the relatively massive rise in CO2 over the same period? It’s invisible. As indeed it is on all the other gauge records I looked at. That tells me that the effect of increased CO2 is insignificant.
Furthermore, the land in NYC is sinking, the rate of which has been evaluated at 1.44mm/annum, see
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000363
This makes the net sea level rise to be 1.41mm/annum, almost exactly what was highlighted in the NOAA feature I started out with. Except there’s no acceleration.. The clever people say the acceleration is due to satellite detection of the additional thermal expansion of deeper water that isn’t adjacent to a coastline. Satellite measurement came in during 1992, it’s not AGW, it’s high tech obfuscation.
Question – what possible interest is water expansion in mid ocean to anyone (sane) or anything?
Exactly the same interest as the ozone “hole”, er, thinner region with thicker edges, over Antarctica – as best I can tell. Good writeup Richard!
Check the Fort Denison records from the middle of Sydney Harbour, Australia. One of the most complete sea level records from a geologically stable location…
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=680-140
A near straight line since 1885, 0.1mm/year.
It was (0.75 +/- 0.1mm) per year.
Just look at the plot you posted.
I wonder what the per year losses were during the 1910-1940 Arctic Warming period. No one knows, so we don’t know if the current rate of Loss is unprecedented.
Nope,
https://www.iceagenow.info/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget-far-far-higher-than-average/
That shows it was increasing 2016-17 and 2017-18
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20191211.png
Shows there was some loss last year, wiping out the gains in the previous two, but this year we are bang on average.
It looks like, “wait for a sunny day, take photos of ice melting, send out panic reports to media, get publicity”
so Greenland is GAINING ice mass at a slower rate ??? that is what they are claiming ?
Join the fight to free Greenland from the ice!
FREE GREENLAND!