Greenland Ice Sheet : Is it stable?

The Greenland Ice Sheet has been on a rapid downward spiral for at least a couple of decades, but in 2018 it seemed to begin recovering. This week we look at what happened and whether or not this is good news for the future.

Reference links below

#greenland #NOAA #DMI #climatechange

[xlgoldfish]

Who the heck dislikes such a well researched video?

[nevillebuck]

Excellent, easy to comprehend, video. We need more up to date accurate peer-reviewed information that you kindly provided. Thank You.

[alanjones]

What a very refreshing video. Accurate information perfectly narrated. I hope this becomes mainstream ASAP. I'm a massive fan!

[borosenkilde]

Just subscribed after watching some of your videos. I think you are great at explaning the situation i arctic.

[kimweaver]

As the areas supporting ice masses continue to shed ice, isostatic rebound pushes the surface upwards. This has a slight negative feedback quality, as the ice is lifted slightly higher into the cold atmosphere and suffers slightly less melt. But it also ends up displacing more sea water, raising the sea level a bit more. So far, most of the ice which has been lost has been in the N. hemisphere. The water made it's way to the sea and then begins to be distributed southward, depending on gravity, centripetal force, winds and currents. That could have orbital effects. Nothing catastrophic, but potentially adding to the problems of surface heating.

[squares]

Excellent video. You clearly do an exemplary job on research and your presentation is concise and understandable to the laymen, me. Regarding the content, a bit of good news is refreshing but I fear it will be short lived. Thank you for your continued climate awareness efforts.

[theonionpirate]

You're quickly becoming my favorite source of climate change information!

[vancouveride]

Its 660, 000 square miles by 1.2 miles thick. Which is a volume of 792000 cu miles or 1.166x10^17 cubic feet. A ton of ice is about 34 cubic feet so that is 3.429x10^15 tons. Of which we are losing about 250 billion tons a year so it should all be gone in 13715 years assuming that the rate is linear which is probably a bad assumption.

[crustyolcoot]

Well researched and explanation was fairly easy to get the head around. Thankyou.

[rogerwood]

Another great summary. Can't wait to see what you'll be able to do with 1M subscribers. I look forward to it.

[lindalannon]

Thank you for a lot of information presented in a very understandable and concise manner. Also, I love the wood behind you in the video, very nice.

[dereknewbury]

Only recently discovered your videos and am so glad to find a source of well researched data and such a succinct presentation. Just one tiny note: how about NOT starting your script with, 'just to get you warmed up...' (0.53") in this particular context!

[tomhall]

I think the takeaway message for newly concerned viewers, is that our current understanding of net ice loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet is not just based on computer projections of future effects of a warming biosphere, but on actual detailed observations of measurable inputs and outputs that chronicle the deterioration and ultimate end of post glacial Holocene climate stability.

[jimbobaggans]

Holy Cow! The thickness of a blood cell !! That is truly amazing.

[eddiewiller]

I'm glad I found this channel. A few other climate science channels have gone dark over the last year, and I've been missing the updates on things like this. I would give one nit-picky criticism on this video though: did you actually answer the question asked in the video title? I would say that you *implied* the answer with the quote about how having one good year where things went our way won't make up for all the massive losses over the past few decades, but perhaps a bit more summative segment at the end would help. I know scientists don't like to characterize other scientists and instead prefer to just quote the other scientists and expect that common thread running through should be obvious to everyone, but I think it is possible to both not oversimplify with a well-written synthesis characterizing the cited works as a whole. Caveats are a good way to keep from oversimplifying while also helping to boil down the cited works to the takeaway. It certainly would make the video accessible to a wider audience. I think having videos I can share with people that I think they can handle makes it more likely that I can move the needle with them.

[triumph]

if the earth was warmer and the ice sheet smaller when the Norse were farming in Greenland how much higher was the sea level ?

[ScottMana]

It is not that complicated, Greenland ice is thickening. It has yet to reduce to levels 80 years ago and is a long way off from levels 800 years ago. So both long and short term trends are growing. All perfectly normal and natural trends.

[landcruisingdoc]

I read somewhere that the volume of Greenland Ice Sheet is 2, 900, 000 km3 which would lead to a mass of of 2.7 million Gigatons (assuming an ice density of 0.934 Gigatons/km3). I wonder how less dramatic the mass loss chart shown in the video would be if it was shown as a function of the total mass? The 281 Gigatons per year would translate to 0.01% per year.

[carmelbrain]

Very interesting presentation. Could you interview Jason Box so that we can find out more about the dark snow project and extreme glacial flows. This would be a very interesting part 2. Thanks for all your efforts.

[kimshepherd]

What does the exponential feedback predictor look like.