Sentences with phrase «total global ice»

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level.

Not exact matches

Since 1995, researchers found that Greenland has lost a total of about 4,000 gigatons of ice, which has become the biggest single contributor to the rise in global sea levels.

The Greenland ice sheet is thought to be one of the largest contributors to global sea level rise over the past 20 years, accounting for 0.5 millimeters of the current total of 3.2 millimeters of sea level rise per year.

Rising global temperatures have also made glaciers — ice masses that currently occupy nearly 10 percent of the world's total land area — increasingly unstable.

The Greenland ice sheet (GIS) has been melting so slowly and so negligibly in recent decades that the entire ice sheet's total contribution to global sea level rise was a mere 0.39 of a centimeter (0.17 to 0.61 cm) between 1993 and 2010 (Leeson et al, 2017).

Pine Island Glacier could collapse — stagnate and retreat far up into the bay, resulting in rapid sea level rise — within the next few centuries, raising global sea levels by 1.5 m11, 12, out of a total of 3.3 m from the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet13.

The most exciting thing is we'll get a chance to see the relative strength of all of these over the next few years, and it will most interesting to compare the total decade of 2010 - 2019 to previous decades in terms of the trends in Arctic Sea ice, Global Temps, and of course, OHC.

The total 2000 — 2008 mass loss of ~ 1500 gigatons, equivalent to 0.46 millimeters per year of global sea level rise, is equally split between surface processes (runoff and precipitation) and ice dynamics.

Thus, the concept of an emissions budget is very useful to get the message across that the amount of CO2 that we can still emit in total (not per year) is limited if we want to stabilise global temperature at a given level, so any delay in reducing emissions can be detrimental — especially if we cross tipping points in the climate system, e.g trigger the complete loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Having said that, it is a really small effect — if the entire Arctic summer sea ice pack melted (average thickness 2 metres, density ~ 920 kg / m3, area 3 × 10 ^ 6 km ^ 2 (0.8 % total ocean area) = > a 4.5 cm rise instantly which implies a global sea level rise of 0.36 mm.

Interesting you cut - off total ice extents at 2012, especially since the total extent of Arctic sea ice has actually increased since then, and in fact the Antarctic ice extents are at a RECORD MAXIMUM — so things aren't always what they appear to be in a very complex system known as global climate.

As the rate of ice loss has accelerated, its contribution to global sea level rise has increased from a little more than half of the total increase from 1993 - 2008 to 75 - 80 percent of the total increase between 2003 - 2007.

Jim, you might consider whether or not total sea ice is a good indicator of the relationship between CO2 and global temperature.

And the global total amount of sea ice is above normal.

Total global snow / ice / albedo effects of course encompass far more than the Arctic sea.

Cloud variations are obviously an important element on a global scale, but the effects of Arctic ice melting are important locally and also a non-trivial fraction of global albedo feedbacks, which are a contributor to total feedback that is smaller than those from water vapor and probably from cloud feedbacks, but not insignificant.

And while you are doing that, davie, you might tell us in your own words how less than 1c warming since the end of the little ice age and the beginning of the industrial revolution, measured with ever changing systems in areas of exponential land use change by people who have a total, consensual belief in global warming by ACO2 and no demonstrable scientific scepticism whatsoever, must constitute a «bad thing», awa being scientifically based and believable.

I have to add that another graph has been making the rounds, showing the total global sea ice extent.

Kjær, Kjeldsen and Korsgaard's team shows that the ice sheet «contributed substantially to sea level rise throughout the 20th century, providing at least 25 ± 9.4 millimeters of the total global mean rise,» writes Csatho, an associate professor of geology in UB's College of Arts and Sciences, in her News and Views analysis.

«A peer - reviewed paper [Krivova et al.] published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries... Use of the Stefan - Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W / m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate.44 C global temperature increase... A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50 % over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum... This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels.

published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries... Use of the Stefan - Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W / m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate.44 C global temperature increase... A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50 % over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum... This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels.

However, despite this, the team reckon to have perhaps isolated a «global warming» signal in the accelerated run off of the Greenland Ice Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cyclIce Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cyclice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cycles.

Perhaps with all that is known now, someone will propose a well - defined multivariate test entailing all relevant global data (including Antarctic ice extent and total Antarctic ice mass, mean and extremal rainfall everywhere, mean and extremal cyclonic storms everywhere.)

In combination with the low Arctic sea ice extent for November, this produced a remarkably low global sea ice total.

A total absence of ice in the Arctic would not just affect local wildlife and indigenous communities but could also have huge implications for the global climate.

The Greenland ice sheet (GIS) has been melting so slowly and so negligibly in recent decades that the entire ice sheet's total contribution to global sea level rise was a mere 0.39 of a centimeter (0.17 to 0.61 cm) between 1993 and 2010 (Leeson et al, 2017).

droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, global ice cover, and rainfall are about the same (maybe a slight increase in total rainfall); forests and all other vegetation that has been studied are growing faster; actual effects of putative ocean pH change are negligible to non-existent.

All of these characteristics (except for the ocean temperature) have been used in SAR and TAR IPCC (Houghton et al. 1996; 2001) reports for model - data inter-comparison: we considered as tolerable the following intervals for the annual means of the following climate characteristics which encompass corresponding empirical estimates: global SAT 13.1 — 14.1 °C (Jones et al. 1999); area of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere 6 — 14 mil km2 and in the Southern Hemisphere 6 — 18 mil km2 (Cavalieri et al. 2003); total precipitation rate 2.45 — 3.05 mm / day (Legates 1995); maximum Atlantic northward heat transport 0.5 — 1.5 PW (Ganachaud and Wunsch 2003); maximum of North Atlantic meridional overturning stream function 15 — 25 Sv (Talley et al. 2003), volume averaged ocean temperature 3 — 5 °C (Levitus 1982).

You can't reference actual evidence that the total amount of global ice is increasing because it is not true.

«All 18 periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of [total solar irradiance] together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age.»

The melting contributes to about 1 % of the global sea level rise — a small contribution and only 3 — 4 % of the total contribution from global glaciers and ice caps.

Overall total global sea ice has been rising robustly over the past four years.

RE: 4th Error -RCB- Poses an objection to the non-scientific term catastrophic [NOTE: Scientific «consensus» is often being used & / or implied in standard climate - change discourse - Yet Consensus is a Political Term - NOT a Scientific Term]- HOWEVER - When Jim Hansen, the IPCC & Al Gore, et - al - go from predicting 450 — 500 ppm CO2 to 800 — 1000ppm by the end of the 21st century -LCB- said to the be highest atmospheric CO2 content in 20 — 30 Million YRS -RCB-; — & estimates for aver global temps by 21st century's end go from 2 * C to 6 * C to 10 * C; — & increased sea level estimates go from 10 - 20 cm to 50 - 60 cm to 1M — 2M -LCB- which would totally submerge the Maldives & partially so Bangladesh -RCB-; — predictions of the total melting of the Himalayan Ice caps by 2050, near total melting of Greenland's ice sheet & partial melting of Antarctica's ice sheet before the 21st century's end; — massive crop failures; — more intense & frequent hurricane -LCB- ala Katrina -RCB- for much longer seasonal durations, etc, etc, etc... — IMO That's Sounds pretty damned CATASTROPHIC to Ice caps by 2050, near total melting of Greenland's ice sheet & partial melting of Antarctica's ice sheet before the 21st century's end; — massive crop failures; — more intense & frequent hurricane -LCB- ala Katrina -RCB- for much longer seasonal durations, etc, etc, etc... — IMO That's Sounds pretty damned CATASTROPHIC to ice sheet & partial melting of Antarctica's ice sheet before the 21st century's end; — massive crop failures; — more intense & frequent hurricane -LCB- ala Katrina -RCB- for much longer seasonal durations, etc, etc, etc... — IMO That's Sounds pretty damned CATASTROPHIC to ice sheet before the 21st century's end; — massive crop failures; — more intense & frequent hurricane -LCB- ala Katrina -RCB- for much longer seasonal durations, etc, etc, etc... — IMO That's Sounds pretty damned CATASTROPHIC to ME!

Current total ice - loss in Greenland is running at an estimated 200 Gte / yr and Antarctica at 150 Gte / yr (with ice mass gain in the east and loss in the west — with some estimates of a net gain)-- at that rate of 1mm / yr, by 2100 the global ice - loss would raise sea level by a little over 3 inches.

Scientific records over the past million years show that as periodic ice ages ended, global average temperatures rose a total of 4 - 7 degrees Celsius over the course of about 5,000 years.

Arctic and global sea ice totals have moved consistently downward over 38 years.

But one modeling study put the threshold level for the eventual near - complete loss of Greenland's ice sheet at a local warming of just 2.7 C — which, due to Arctic amplification, means a global warming of only 1.2 C. Total melting of Greenland — luckily, something that would likely take centuries — would raise sea levels by 7 meters, submerging Miami and most of Manhattan, as well as large chunks of London, Shanghai, Bangkok and Mumbai.

So the fact remains, the total global see ice coverage is above average.

The point is that, objectively speaking, based on actual data, not model data or nursery stories, the total global sea ice coverage is currently above average.