On a glorious January morning in 2015, the Australian icebreaker RSV Aurora Australis was losing a battle off the coast of East Antarctica. For days, the ship had been trying to push through heavy sea ice. It rammed into the pack, backed up and crashed forward again. But the ice, several metres thick, hardly budged. Stephen Rintoul, an oceanographer at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, nearly gave up his goal — to reach a part of the continent that had thwarted all previous expeditions. “I really thought that would be it,” he says. “It’d be another failed attempt.”
"Greenland by itself has enough ice to cause many meters of sea level rise. If you live near the coast, the question of “when” is really important. This paper suggests that “when” may be sooner than we hoped."
(An excellent, authoritative summary of much recent science discussions on Arctic changes and implications. Geoengineering (in a widel definition) offered, not as a technical solution, but as a last hope....it's a perspective!)
A new international research study, including climate change experts from the University of Leeds, University of Exeter and the Met Office, reveals that permafrost is more sensitive to the effects of global warming than previously thought.
The study, published today in Nature Climate Change, suggests that nearly 4 million square kilometres of frozen soil—an area larger than India—could be lost for every additional degree of global warming experienced.
The largest glacier in Greenland is even more vulnerable to sustained ice losses than previously thought, scientists have reported.
Jakobshavn glacier, responsible for feeding flotillas of icebergs into the Ilulissat icefjord — and possibly for unleashing the iceberg that sank the Titanic — is an enormous outlet for the larger Greenland ice sheet, which itself contains enough ice to raise seas by more than 20 feet.
Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes, where hundreds of millions of people live.
The Paris Agreement’s inclusion of “well below 2°C” and “pursue … 1.5°C” has catalysed fervent activity amongst many within the scientific community keen to understand what this more ambitious objective implies for mitigation. However, this activity has demonstrated little in the way of plurality of responses. Instead there remains an almost exclusive focus on how future ‘negative emissions technologies’ (NETs) may offer a beguiling and almost free “get out of jail card”.