05/01/2016

What Scientists Just Discovered In Greenland Could Be Making Sea-Level Rise Even Worse

Washington PostChelsea Harvey

Water is seen on part of the glacial ice sheet that covers about 80 percent of Greenland. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


Rising global temperatures may be affecting the Greenland ice sheet — and its contribution to sea-level rise — in more serious ways that scientists imagined, a new study finds. Recent changes to the island's snow and ice cover appear to have affected its ability to store excess water, meaning more melting ice may be running off into the ocean than previously thought.
That's worrying news for the precarious Greenland ice sheet, which scientists say has already lost more than 9 trillions tons of ice in the past century — and whose melting rate only continues to increase as temperatures keep warming up. NASA estimates that the Greenland ice sheet is losing about 287 billion tons of ice every year, partly due to surface melting and partly due to the calving of large chunks of ice. Because of the ice sheet's potential to significantly raise sea levels as it runs into the ocean, scientists have been keeping a close eye on it — and anything that might affect how fast it's melting.
The new study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, focuses on a part of the ice sheet known as "firn" — a porous layer of built-up snow that slowly freezes into ice over time. It's considered an important part of the ice sheet because of its ability to trap and store excess water before it's able to run off the surface of the glacier, an essential service that helps mitigate the sea-level rise that would otherwise be caused by the runoff water.
"As this layer is porous and the pores are connected, theoretically all the pore space in this firn layer can be used to store meltwater percolating into the firn whenever melt occurs at the surface," said the new paper's lead author, Horst Machguth of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, in an email to The Washington Post. Over time, the percolating meltwater trickles down through the firn and refreezes.

Humans' staggering effect on Earth
Sprawling Mexico City — population 20 million, with a density of 24,600 people per square mile — rolls across the landscape, displacing every scrap of natural habitat. Images of consumption are the theme of the book, "Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot." It addresses environmental deterioration through subjects including materialism, consumption, pollution, fossil fuels and carbon footprints.


Until recently, many scientists have assumed that most of Greenland's firn space is still available for trapping meltwater. But the new research shows that this is likely no longer the case. Through on-the-ground observations, the scientists have shown that the recent formation of dense ice layers near the ice sheet's surface are making it more difficult for liquid water to percolate into the firn — meaning it's forced to run off instead.
"If you look at some of the other studies which have been arguing that you have unlimited capacity for retention of water in the firn, this study shows that that is not the case," said Kurt Kjær, a curator and researcher at the Natural History Museum of Denmark, who has studied glacier dynamics on the Greenland ice sheet but was not involved in the study.
The researchers conducted their study by examining ice cores drilled into West Greenland's firn between 2009 and 2015. They wanted to find out how a series of particularly warm summers, which caused especially significant melting events in 2010 and 2012, might have affected the ice sheet.
"I think the most notable result of our study is showing that the firn reacts faster to an atmospheric warming than expected," Machguth said in his email. By examining the cores, the researchers found that the deluge of meltwater in recent years had trickled into the firn and frozen into chunks called "ice lenses." These lenses then began to hinder any additional liquid water from trickling down through the firn, meaning the meltwater began to accumulate and freeze near the surface, increasing the number and thickness of the existing lenses in a kind of vicious cycle.
The cores suggested that the lenses thickened quickly between 2009 and 2012, Machguth said. Then, starting in 2012, another change took place.
"At our main field site the very intense melt of summer 2012 did not result in a strong increase of the ice layer as the layer was already in place," he wrote to The Post. "Instead, at the main field site we could observe how the ice layer forced the meltwater to run off along the surface."
This effect was most pronounced at lower elevations in West Greenland, where the water first ran down the ice sheet and accumulated. But Machguth and his colleagues predict that the same ice lens formation process will continue to occur at higher and higher elevations — and the amount of meltwater forced to run off the glacier, having no available firn to trickle into, will only increase.
This is not only a concern on the basis of its possible contribution to sea-level rise — the researchers also suggest that an increase in runoff could lead to certain feedback processes that will cause even more melt to occur in the future. Runoff water can carve channels into the ice sheet's surface and create slushy areas, they note in the paper, which can cause a reduction in albedo — the ability of the ice sheet to reflect sunlight away from its surface. With more sunlight being absorbed, rather than reflected, surface temperatures could become even warmer and cause melt rates to accelerate.
And these changes to the firn are largely irreversible. While new firn can form as more snow falls and accumulates on Greenland's surface, the process can take decades — and might not be able to occur at all in a warming climate. This particular study was only conducted in West Greenland, so the scientists can't say for sure whether their findings apply to the entire island. It would be enlightening to conduct similar studies elsewhere on the ice sheet, Machguth noted.
But in the meantime, the observations represent an important step forward in understanding the processes affecting Greenland, and could help scientists improve the simulations they use to make predictions about what will happen to the ice sheet in the future. "When you get this kind of dataset, a new kind of knowledge, of course it should be put into the models," said Kjær, the Natural History Museum scientist.

Links

95% Consensus Of Expert Economists: Cut Carbon Pollution

The Guardian

A survey of economists with climate expertise finds a consensus that climate change is expensive and carbon pollution cuts are needed
Republican U.S. presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio listens to a question during a town hall meeting in Waterloo, Iowa, December 29, 2015. 95% of economics experts disagree with Rubio's claims that cutting carbon pollution will hurt the economy. Photograph: Scott Morgan/Reuters

The Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University (NYU) School of Law recently published a report summarizing a survey of economists with climate expertise. The report was a follow-up and expansion of a similar survey conducted in 2009 by the same institute. The key finding: there's a strong consensus among climate economics experts that we should put a price on carbon pollution to curb the expensive costs of climate change.
The survey participants included economists who have published papers related to climate change "in a highly ranked, peer-reviewed economics or environmental economics journal since 1994." Overall, 365 participants completed the survey, which established the consensus of expert climate economists on a number of important questions.

Carbon pollution cuts are needed regardless of what other countries do
In the 2009 version of the survey, the respondents were asked under what conditions the United States should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 57% answered that the US should cut its emissions no matter what actions other countries take, while another 38% said that American emissions cuts would be warranted if many or all other countries commit to reducing theirs (as just happened in the Paris international negotiations).
In the 2015 survey, the number of expert economists saying that the US should cut its emissions no matter what rose to 77%. A further 18% said that if other countries agree to cut their emissions, the US should follow suit. In other words, there is a 95% consensus among expert climate economists that the US should follow through with its pledges to cut carbon pollution in the wake of the Paris international climate negotiations, and more than three out of four agreed that the US should take action to curb global warming no matter what.
Figure 9 from 'Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change' 2015 report by the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity.

This expert consensus is in stark contrast to conservative political opposition to the Paris accord. For example, Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said of the agreement,
This kind of unilateral disarmament in our economy is reckless, and it is hurting the American Dream
Quite obviously an international agreement made by 195 nations around the world is the antithesis of unilateral action. However, 77% of expert economists agree that unilateral action would be appropriate in any case, directly contradicting Rubio's comments. Additionally, 82% of the experts agreed that by implementing climate policies, the US could strategically induce other countries to cut their carbon pollution.

Climate change is already hurting the global economy
When asked at what date climate change will have a net negative impact on the global economy, the median survey response was 2025. In the recent past, climate change likely had a net positive impact on the global economy, due primarily to the effect of carbon fertilization on crops and other plant life. However, even contrarian economists agree, when accounting for the vulnerability of poorer countries to climate impacts, global warming has been hurting the global economy since about 1980.
The NYU survey asked when the economic benefits we experienced up to 1980 would be completely wiped out; 41% of respondents said that's already happened. Another 25% answered that it would happen within a decade, and 26% said we'd see net negative economic impacts by 2050. If we continue with business-as-usual pollution and warming, on average the experts predicted a GDP loss of about 10% by the end of the century, and that there would be a 20% chance of a "catastrophic" loss of one-quarter of global GDP.
Figure 5 from 'Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change' 2015 report by the NYU Institute for Policy Integrity.





Of course, ideally we would have stopped warming the planet in 1980 to preserve the economic benefits of global warming to that date. At this point it's a question of just how much damage climate change will do to the global economy, and the economic experts are worried that the results could be catastrophic.

Climate change will hurt economic growth
78% of the survey participants said that it's likely (36%) or extremely likely (42%) that climate change will have a long-term negative impact on the growth rate of the global economy. That's an important point, because most current integrated economic-climate assessment models assume that economic growth will continue regardless of climate change impacts. There's been a growing body of research indicating that as you might expect, that won't be the case.
The results of this survey question show that most expert economists agree, climate change will hurt global economic growth. That also suggests that past model-based studies likely significantly underestimated the costs of climate change. Along the same lines, 51% of the experts answered that the US government's estimate for the "social cost of carbon" ($37 per metric ton), which is largely based on estimates from these models, is too low. 18% of the experts said that value is about right, and just 8% said it's too high.

Carbon pricing is an efficient way to cut pollution
The survey also asked the experts about the most economically efficient method of reducing carbon pollution. 81% said a market-based system (carbon tax or cap and trade system) would be most efficient, while 13% answered that coordinated performance standards and programs that prioritize cleaner fuels and energy efficiency would be most efficient.
In the US, President Obama's Clean Power Plan is closer to the latter system of performance standards, although the president has said he would prefer the type of market-based system favored by 81% of economic experts. Implementing a carbon tax or cap and trade system would require bipartisan congressional action, but over the past several years, Republican Party leaders have shown scant interest in crafting the efficient climate policies favored by economic experts and by their own voters.

Consensus of economic experts: cut carbon pollution
The NYU survey reveals a clear economic consensus on global warming. The experts agree: climate change is hurting the global economy, we should mitigate those costs by cutting carbon pollution, and the most efficient way to do that is with a market-based system like a carbon tax or cap and trade system.
This expert consensus clearly contradicts the arguments made by Republican Party leaders and other opponents of climate policies – that taking these actions will cripple the economy. In reality, economists are worried that if we fail to cut carbon pollution and instead continue with business-as-usual, it will badly stunt economic growth and may potentially lead to catastrophic economic consequences.
However, we can still solve the problem while creating jobs and growing the economy, if our political leaders will listen to the economic experts and their voters. So far, convincing Republican Party leaders to listen to an expert climate consensus has been a fruitless task, but there are signs that the party is starting to move in the right direction.

Links