POSTDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH
03/24/2015 - The Atlantic overturning is one of Earth’s most important heat transport systems, pumping warm water northwards and cold water southwards. Also known as the Gulf Stream system, it is responsible for the mild climate in northwestern Europe. Scientists now found evidence for a slowdown of the overturning – multiple lines of observation suggest that in recent decades, the current system has been weaker than ever before in the last century, or even in the last millennium. The gradual but accelerating melting of the Greenland ice-sheet, caused by man-made global warming, is a possible major contributor to the slowdown. Further weakening could impact marine ecosystems and sea level as well as weather systems in the US and Europe.
“It is conspicuous that one specific area in the North Atlantic has been cooling in the past hundred years while the rest of the world heats up,” says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study to be published inNature Climate Change. Previous research had already indicated that a slowdown of the so-called Atlantic meridional overturning circulation might be to blame for this. “Now we have detected strong evidence that the global conveyor has indeed been weakening in the past hundred years, particularly since 1970,” says Rahmstorf.
Because long-term direct ocean current measurements are lacking, the scientists mainly used sea-surface and atmospheric temperature data to derive information about the ocean currents, exploiting the fact that ocean currents are the leading cause of temperature variations in the subpolar north Atlantic. From so-called proxy data – gathered from ice-cores, tree-rings, coral, and ocean and lake sediments – temperatures can be reconstructed for more than a millennium back in time. The recent changes found by the team are unprecedented since the year 900 AD, strongly suggesting they are caused by man-made global warming.
“The melting Greenland ice sheet is likely disturbing the circulation”
The Atlantic overturning is driven by differences in the density of the ocean water. From the south, the warm and hence lighter water flows northwards, where the cold and thus heavier water sinks to deeper ocean layers and flows southwards. “Now freshwater coming off the melting Greenland ice sheet is likely disturbing the circulation,” says Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. The freshwater is diluting the ocean water. Less saline water is less dense and has therefore less tendency to sink into the deep. “So the human-caused mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet appears to be slowing down the Atlantic overturning – and this effect might increase if temperatures are allowed to rise further,” explains Box.
The observed cooling in the North Atlantic, just south of Greenland, is stronger than what most computer simulations of the climate have predicted so far. “Common climate models are underestimating the change we’re facing, either because the Atlantic overturning is too stable in the models or because they don’t properly account for Greenland ice sheet melt, or both,” says Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the US. “That is another example where observations suggest that climate model predictions are in some respects still overly conservative when it comes to the pace at which certain aspects of climate change are proceeding.”
No new ice-age – but major negative effects are possible
The cooling above the Northern Atlantic would only slightly reduce the continued warming of the continents. The scientists certainly do not expect a new ice age, thus the imagery of the ten-year-old Hollywood blockbuster ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ is far from reality. However, it is well established that a large, even gradual change in Atlantic ocean circulation could have major negative effects.
“If the slowdown of the Atlantic overturning continues, the impacts might be substantial,” says Rahmstorf. “Disturbing the circulation will likely have a negative effect on the ocean ecosystem, and thereby fisheries and the associated livelihoods of many people in coastal areas. A slowdown also adds to the regional sea-level rise affecting cities like New York and Boston. Finally, temperature changes in that region can also influence weather systems on both sides of the Atlantic, in North America as well as Europe.”
If the circulation weakens too much it can even break down completely – the Atlantic overturning has for long been considered a possible tipping element in the Earth System. This would mean a relatively rapid and hard-to-reverse change. The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates there to be an up to one-in-ten chance that this could happen as early as within this century. However, expert surveys indicate that many researchers assess the risk to be higher. The study now published by the international team of researchers around Rahmstorf provides information on which to base a new and better risk assessment.
Article:Rahmstorf, S., Box, J., Feulner, G., Mann, M., Robinson, A., Rutherford, S., Schaffernicht, E. (2015): Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nature Climate Change (online) [DOI:10.1038/nclimate2554]
- Weblink to NASA animation “The Great Ocean Conveyor Belt” (downloadable video that shows the current system that now is found to slow down in the North tlantic):http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/videos/thermohaline-circulation-great-ocean-conveyor-belt
- Weblink to a study on possible impacts of a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9561-y
- Weblink to the expert assessment of an AMOC tipping:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/13/0809117106.abstract
FEBRUARY 02, 2015
by ROBERT HUNZIKER
Is abrupt climate change already here?
There are some serious scientists who believe it is already here. If their analysis is correct, the world could turn nearly uninhabitable within current lifetimes.
In that regard, the American public is overly, dangerously casual about the prospects/risks of abrupt climate change. This is found in numerous studies and polls, e.g. according to a Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, in an international survey of 39 countries, Americans were among the least concerned about climate change threatening the country. Global warming also ranked near the bottom of Americans’ priorities.
As it goes, the American public may be caught off guard, unprepared, and ill equipped to press its political establishment for appropriate action because abrupt climate change has a history of happening very, very quickly, within decades, not over hundreds of years.
Assuming these scientists are correct, by the time the U.S. Congress gets serious about climate change, they’ll be wearing waders.
As for the risks associated with abrupt climate change, according to Paul Beckwith, Laboratory for Paleoclimatology and Climatology, University of Ottawa, in the past: “The temperature of the planet has increased by 5C or 6C within one decade or two decades… not within a hundred years but within one or two decades… during the ice age period between 70,000 and 40,000 years ago, the temperature rose over Greenland 5-6C in a decade or two… and 55 million years ago… the temperature rose globally by 5C in 13 years, as shown in sediment samples.” (Source:COP20: Global Arctic Methane Emergency)
Based upon historic records, once abrupt climate change commences, and when viewed on a geological-time basis, it has the potential to take off like a house on fire. According to Paul Beckwith, unfortunately: “We’re undergoing the early stages of abrupt climate change,” already, right now! As such, a rapid self-fulfilling temperature rise of 5C or 6C would be devastating for life, as we know it.
This risk of further rapid abrupt climate change, as for example, temperatures zooming upwards, depends upon the integrity of the ice of the Arctic, among other considerations. As emphasized by Beckwith, when analyzing the climate system, it is important to understand that metrics can be misleading. For example, the consensus opinion talks about 2C as a cap for rising temperatures; however, in point of fact, “What is important is the temperature distribution on the planet on a latitudinal basis.”
Beckwith: “The Arctic is absorbing a lot more solar energy, and by itself at a much greater rate, than anywhere else on the planet. In fact, on average, in the last number of decades, the Arctic temperature has risen 1.0C per decade whereas the global average temperature rise has been about 0.15C per decade. So that ratio is 6 or 7 times more.”
Therefore, the most immediate risk of further abrupt climate change hinges on how well the Arctic withstands global warming. As the Arctic loses ice mass, it releases more, and more, methane (CH4), which is much more powerful at entrapping heat than is carbon dioxide (CO2), and because massive quantities of CH4 are embedded within the ice, only a small fraction may cause the planet to heat up rapidly, going into deadly overdrive, resulting in numerous outgrowths negatively impacting life. As for example, rapid increase in sea levels, flooding coastal cities, embedded droughts, diminishing agricultural production, severe storm activity, and horrific heat throughout the mid latitudes, resulting in panic, illness, and sudden death. It is likely the world turns chaotic.
Scientists are radically divided on the issue of abrupt climate change and few predict an upsurge any time soon. Nevertheless, it’s the scientists who base their opinion on first hand knowledge, “boots on the ground,” who are screaming the loudest. They do not let the “ computer models” override what they personally experience. In contrast, they see and feel the reality “in the field.” They are like scientific pioneers in the field, in the marsh, below and above the ice, on expeditions into the wilderness where nobody cares to tread. It’s hard work.
Those scientific pioneers, like John Nissen, Chairman of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (“AMEG”), are deeply concerned about the rate of melt of the Arctic, and the attendant enormous plumes of methane, already observed in the Arctic seas, especially in the East Siberian Ice Shelf where waters are shallow and easily warmed, threatening to release gigatons of methane. Expeditions above, below, and on the surface have convinced these scientists that we’ve got a huge problem coming up, maybe soon, maybe too soon.
According to John Nissen: “Sea ice could disappear at the end of summer as soon as next September. At that point, further warming of the Arctic, sea level rise, methane release, in that time bomb, and abrupt climate change, could become unstoppable. The fuse will have been lit and will be going off very quickly. We consider it an absolute scandal that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says nothing about the greatest threat to humanity since civilization began.”
In turn, these pioneering scientists listen to other scientists who also favor “boots on the ground” analysis over scientific modeling, people like Dr. Natalia Shakhova, who leads the Russia-U.S. Methane Study at the International Arctic Research Center, at the University Alaska Fairbanks and the Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. Dr. Shakhova’s expeditions to the Arctic convince her that only a tiny percentage of the vast amounts of methane buried in Arctic ice is necessary to double current atmospheric CH4. Worse yet, she suspects an outburst of 50 gigatons could happen at any time. In many respects, this would be a disaster beyond repair.
In an interview, Shakhova says, “We do not like what we see… absolutely do not like it.”
In the end, too much carbon dioxide emitted by burning too much gas, oil & coal, blankets the atmosphere enough to heat up the Arctic far above and way beyond past centuries, causing torrential weather patterns throughout the Northern Hemisphere, and shaking lose too much methane for human comfort.
Could civilization withstand a 50-gigaton release? Professor Wadhams’ response is: “No, I don’t think it can.”
Is there a solution?
Yes, there may be solutions but according to these scientists, a sense of urgency matters more than anything at this late hour.
Paul Beckwith is one of the scientific pioneers, an advocate, a researcher, and member of AMEG, co-founded by Peter Wadhams, professor of Ocean Physics, University of Cambridge.
Beckwith: “We have to slash emissions there’s no question, slash the CO2 emissions and quickly, but that’s not sufficient. We also have to cool the Arctic, and we also have to try to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.”
The technology is there, solar radiation management, reflecting incoming solar, and sea salt spraying, as well as employing concerted efforts to increase vegetation to absorb CO2, and carbon capture, and biochar.
However, there’s risk because nobody has proven these geoengineering techniques effective on a planetary scale. On that basis, they are experimental. There is no consensus in the world community to test geoengineering, which is very provocative subject matter amongst scientists, some favor, some oppose. And, those opposed adamantly oppose because of potential harmful feedback loops. It may be a risky venture.
But, what if these early-warning scientists are wrong? What if they are absolutely correct about the outcome of global warming/climate change but too optimistic about the timing? This, therefore, is all the more reason for governments to initiate conversions now from fossil fuels to renewables, hopefully rescuing future generations from the potential of a global warming nightmare.
If we lose the ice caps, civilization starves and the world’s coastal cities drown. It’s really as simple, and complex, as that. Already, CO2 levels are at an historic high.
Throughout geological history, “Every time we have hit high CO2, we’ve lost the ice caps,” Peter Ward, professor, Dept. of Earth & Space Sciences, University of Washington, Our Future in a World without Ice Caps, 2013 lecture series.
Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Scientist believes intelligence services are considering using climate-altering systems as weapons. Photograph: Mike Hollingshead/Barcroft Media
Ian Sample, science editor, in San Jose
Sunday 15 February 2015 11.04 GMT
Ian Sample, science editor, in San Jose
Sunday 15 February 2015 11.04 GMT
US expert Alan Robock raises concern over who would control climate-altering technologies if research is paid for by intelligence agencies
A senior US scientist has expressed concern that the intelligence services are funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.
Alan Robock, a climate scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, has called on secretive government agencies to be open about their interest in radical work that explores how to alter the world’s climate.
Robock, who has contributed to reports for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), uses computer models to study how stratospheric aerosols could cool the planet in the way massive volcanic eruptions do.
But he was worried about who would control such climate-altering technologies should they prove effective, he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose.
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences published a two-volume report on different approaches to tackling climate change. One focused on means to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the other on ways to change clouds or the Earth’s surface to make them reflect more sunlight out to space.
The report concluded that while small-scale research projects were needed, the technologies were so far from being ready that reducing carbon emissions remained the most viable approach to curbing the worst extremes of climate change. Areport by the Royal Society in 2009 made similar recommendations.
The $600,000 report was part-funded by the US intelligence services, but Robock said the CIA and other agencies had not fully explained their interest in the work.
“The CIA was a major funder of the National Academies report so that makes me really worried who is going to be in control,” he said. Other funders included Nasa, the US Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The CIA established the Center on Climate Change and National Security in 2009, a decision that drew fierce criticism from some Republicans who viewed it as a distraction from more pressing terrorist concerns. The centre was closed down in 2012, but the agency said it would continue to monitor the humanitarian consequences of climate change and the impact on US economic security, albeit not from a dedicated office.
Robock said he became suspicious about the intelligence agencies’ involvement in climate change science after receiving a call from two men who claimed to be CIA consultants three years ago. “They said: ‘We are working for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we be able to detect it?’ I think they were also thinking in the back of their minds: ‘If we wanted to control somebody else’s climate could they detect it?’”
He replied that if a country wanted to create a stratospheric cloud large enough to change the climate, it would be visible with satellites and ground-based instruments. The use of the weather as a weapon was banned in 1978 under theEnvironmental Modification Convention (Enmod).
Asked how he felt about the call, Robock said he was scared. “I’d learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that didn’t follow the rules. I thought that wasn’t how my tax money was spent,” he said. The CIA did not respond to requests for comment over the weekend.
The US dabbled in weather modification before Enmod was introduced. In the early 1960s, researchers on Project Storm Fury seeded thunderstorms with various particles in the hope of diminishing their destructive power. A similar process was adopted during the Vietnam war, with clouds seeded over the Ho Chi Minh trail in a bid to make the major supply route for North Vietnamese foot soldiers too muddy to pass.
“I think this research should be out in the open and it has to be international so there won’t be any question that this technology will used for hostile purposes,” Robock said.
THE GUARDIAN (UK)
Land moving upward faster than researchers expected at 1.4in every year, allowing ‘hot potato’ rocks to rise
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Iceland is rising because of climate change, with land freed by the melting of the ice caps rebounding from the Earth at a rate of up to 1.4in per year.
The downside? Researchers believe the extra uplift could be behind an increase in volcanic activity, with three Icelandic eruptions in the last five years shutting down flights and spewing ash in the air.
In new research published in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists from the University of Arizona and the University of Iceland found the earth’s crust rising at a much faster rate amid the greater warming of the last 30 years.
At some sites in south and south-central Iceland, where five of the largest ice caps are located, ice loss resulting from that warming produced an uplift of 1.4in per year, the researchers said.
Researchers have known for some time that land freed from the weight of ice sheets tends to rise. But they did not anticipate just how swiftly the bounce in Iceland was occurring.
“It’s similar to putting weights on a trampoline. If you take the weights off, the trampoline will bounce right back up to its original flat shape,” said Richard Bennett, a geologist at the University of Arizona and one of the authors of the new research.
The bigger bounce was due to increased warming over the last 30 years, mathematical models showed.
“What we found is that the uplift is increasing. It’s faster and faster everywhere because of the accelerated loss of ice mass,” said Bennett.
The researchers relied on 62 GPS devices, deployed on rocks throughout Iceland, to track the changes in position. Some of the GPS receivers had been in position since 1995.
The danger is that increased melting and uplift could lead to a further uptick in volcanic activity. Iceland has experienced three eruptions in the last five years. When Eyjafjallajökull blew in 2010, flights across Europe were disrupted for a week.
The entire chain reaction of melting ice caps, rising earth surface and volcanic activity is still not entirely understood, Bennett said. But as the surface of the earth rises, so do rocks at depth, released from the pressure of the ice.
“They transport the heat like a hot potato as they move from high pressure to lower pressure and enter into conditions that promote melting,” Bennett said. And that creates conditions that are ripe for eruptions.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH WEB
Sep 18, 2014
Sep 18, 2014
In recent years, the retreat of sea ice in the Arctic has been linked to cold winters in Eurasia and North America. Now a study by a team from Japan indicates that a northwards shift of the Gulf Stream could trigger planetary waves that cause cold weather in Eurasia, bring warmth to the Barents Sea and decrease sea-ice extent.
“The relationship between atmospheric forcing in the North Atlantic and sea-ice variability over the Barents Sea remains uncertain,” Kazutoshi Sato of the Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Tokyo and Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology told environmentalresearchweb. “Therefore, we investigated the impact of the Gulf Stream heating anomaly on the atmospheric circulation from the North Atlantic to Eurasia.”
Sato and colleagues found that a “warm Arctic and cold Siberia” pattern was indeed linked to forcing by the Gulf Stream. A poleward shift in the Gulf Stream alters atmospheric convection in the region and affects the jet stream, they discovered. The result is meandering westerly winds that create high pressures over the Eurasian coast, reducing warm air transport and bringing extreme cold weather events to Eurasia. At the same time, the Gulf-Stream-induced atmospheric changes increase southerly winds over the Barents Sea, boosting temperatures and forcing sea ice to drift north.
“The remote atmospheric response from the Gulf Stream would be amplified over the Barents Sea region via interacting with the sea-ice anomaly, promoting the warm Arctic and cold Eurasian pattern,” writes the team in Environmental Research Letters (ERL).
To carry out the analysis, the researchers employed six-hourly data from the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis, along with a linear baroclinic model. Observations of daily mean surface air temperature during December at Bear Island, part of the Svalbard archipelago, enabled the team to compare years with particularly warm and particularly cold winters. The linear baroclinic model revealed the atmospheric response to heating anomalies in areas such as the Barents Sea.
“Our model results showed that a change in condensational heating over the Gulf Stream directly induces a cold anomaly over western Eurasia,” said Sato. “In addition, the southerly winds cause sea-ice decline over the Barents Sea by its northward drift, supporting previous studies focusing on the relationship between the sea-ice retreat over the Barents Sea and warming/cooling over the Arctic/Eurasia.”
As they write in ERL, the team believes that the impact from the Gulf Stream should be considered for a thorough understanding of change in the Barents Sea and the consequent cooling over the continent.
“Today, a linkage between the Arctic and mid-latitudes becomes a hot topic not only scientifically but also socioeconomically,” said Sato in a press release. “Therefore, the role of mid-latitude oceans, e.g. the Gulf Stream, Kuroshio [in the Pacific], should be investigated more than ever towards the better understanding of future projections by improving the modelling of global ocean circulation as well as processes of sea-sea interaction.”
Incorporating the effect of the polewards shift of the Gulf Stream could improve projections of climate once Arctic sea ice has reached low levels.
Now, Sato is researching sea-surface temperature variability over the Gulf Stream in other seasons. Examining temperatures during autumn could help predict Eurasian climate and Barents Sea ice reduction during winter. It’s possible that the polewards shift of the Gulf Stream could also cause extreme events in northern mid-latitudes during other seasons.
- Influence of the Gulf Stream on the Barents Sea ice retreat and Eurasian coldness during early winter Kazutoshi Satoet al. 2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 084009
- Graduate University for Advanced Studies
- Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
About the author
Liz Kalaugher is editor of environmentalresearchweb.
Científicos de la Operación IceBridge, este verano, frente al muro de hielo que es el frente del glaciar Great Land. NASA / Michael Studinger
15 DIC 2014 - 21:09 CET
El gigantesco cubo de hielo que cubre la mayor parte de Groenlandia, con casi cinco veces la extensión de España, se está derritiendo a un ritmo acelerado. Un estudio muestra que su masa helada pierde tantos kilómetros cúbicos como para, una vez aguados, llenar 110 millones de piscinas olímpicas cada año y así, desde hace 20.
Groenlandia es, tras la Antártida, la mayor reserva de agua dulce del planeta. Se ha estimado que si todo el hielo que cubre la gran isla del norte se derritiera de repente, el nivel del mar se elevaría más de seis metros. No sería tan rápido, pero un grupo de investigadores estadounidenses y europeos ha realizado la mayor estimación de la evolución de sus glaciares hecha hasta la fecha y sus resultados son abrumadores.
Hasta ahora, las estimaciones sobre el casquete helado de Groenlandia se basaban en la evolución de cuatro de sus mayores glaciares, cada uno muriendo en un punto cardinal de la isla. El grosor, cambios en su altura, ritmo de avance hacia el mar y deshielo de estos ríos a cámara lenta era después extrapolado a todo la capa de hielo. El problema es que en la isla hay al menos 242 grandes glaciares, cada uno con su propia evolución.
El estudio usa datos de altitud de 100.000 puntos de la isla obtenidos por altimetría láser
La capa de hielo de Groenlandia ha perdido, de media, unos 243.000 millones de toneladas métricas cada año desde hace 20. En volumen, esa ingente masa ocuparía unos 277 kilómetros cúbicos. Lo peor es que, según publican en la revista PNAS, esta dinámica de adelgazamiento se está acelerando en los últimos años.Para seguir la dinámica de los glaciares, los científicos han recurrido a los datos de dos misiones de la NASA complementarias. Por un lado, dentro de su programa ICESat, concluido en 2009, un sistema de altimetría por láser calculaba la altura de la capa de hielo a cada paso que realizaba sobre la isla. Para completarlo, un avión de la Operación IceBridge, también usaba pulsos de luz para, midiendo su rebote, determinar la altura del hielo. Combinadas, ambas misiones mapearon la isla en 100.000 puntos. Los registros se inician en 1993, lo que ha permitido a los investigadores, comprobar la deriva de los glaciares año a año.
"El adelgazamiento dinámico se debe a la aceleración de los glaciares", dice la profesora de geología de la Universidad de Buffalo(Estados Unidos) y principal autora de la investigación, Beata Csatho. "A medida que la velocidad aumenta, más hielo llega al mar, provocando que el glaciar adelgace. Es como si estiraras un chicle", añade. Ese estiramiento, que implica una menor concentración de la masa de hielo, lo hace más vulnerable a la acción de la temperatura o el agua del mar.
El estudio muestra que el 48% de la pérdida neta de masa de hielo se debe a esta aceleración del movimiento de los glaciares. Y casi la mitad de este porcentaje se ha producido en el sureste de la isla. El otro 52% del deshielo de Groenlandia se debería a la reducción de las nevadas y al deshielo provocado por el calentamiento tanto global como local.
La mayor reducción de la altura de los glaciares (en morado) se ha producido en el sureste de la isla. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
La importancia ambiental de los glaciares es mucho mayor que la del llamado deshielo ártico. El casquete polar presenta un ciclo anual de congelación y descongelación del océano. Aunque la extensión del mar helado es cada año menor que el anterior, su impacto sobre el nivel del mar sería nulo. "El mar de hielo está formado de agua oceánica congelada por lo que, las variaciones en el mar helado no tienen un impacto directo en la elevación del nivel del mar, de la misma manera que un cubito de hielo no eleva el nivel de agua del vaso", recuerda Csatho.
El deshielo de Groenlandia eleva el nivel del mar 0,68 mm al año
Pero el deshielo de los glaciares sí aporta una cantidad neta de agua al mar. Según sus estimaciones, desde 1993, el hielo de Groenlandia convertido en agua habría elevado el nivel del mar en unos 0,68 milímetros cada año. Además, los dos tipos de deshielo se refuerzan. "La reducción del mar helado tiene un impacto en el clima global modificando la circulación oceánica y permitiendo a la superficie del océano absorber mayor cantidad de radiación solar y, por tanto, elevando la temperatura de la región ártica", recuerda la investigadora estadounidense.
Ese aumento de la temperatura, en endemoniada combinación, acelera el deshielo de la masa helada de la isla y la bajada de los glaciares. Tampoco es desdeñable la reducción del efecto albedo, la capacidad que tiene el hielo de rebotar buena parte de la radiación solar.
Pero, para poner las cosas en perspectiva, conviene recordar que aún queda mucho hielo en Groenlandia. Si se han perdido unos 277 Km3, todavía hay otros 2,8 millones de Km3. El problema es que el fenómeno del deshielo además de que podría acelerarse, podría llegar a un punto de no retorno. Como dice Csatho: "Algunos estudios predicen cambios irreversibles en Groenlandia en unos pocos siglos o incluso antes. Nuestros resultados ayudarán a mejorar los modelos de la capa de hielo para dar una mejor respuesta a esta cuestión".