Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018

Nature volume 579, pages 233–239 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The Greenland Ice Sheet has been a major contributor to global sea-level rise in recent decades1,2, and it is expected to continue to be so3. Although increases in glacier flow4,5,6 and surface melting7,8,9 have been driven by oceanic10,11,12 and atmospheric13,14 warming, the magnitude and trajectory of the ice sheet’s mass imbalance remain uncertain. Here we compare and combine 26 individual satellite measurements of changes in the ice sheet’s volume, flow and gravitational potential to produce a reconciled estimate of its mass balance. The ice sheet was close to a state of balance in the 1990s, but annual losses have risen since then, peaking at 345 ± 66 billion tonnes per year in 2011. In all, Greenland lost 3,902 ± 342 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2018, causing the mean sea level to rise by 10.8 ± 0.9 millimetres. Using three regional climate models, we show that the reduced surface mass balance has driven 1,964 ± 565 billion tonnes (50.3 per cent) of the ice loss owing to increased meltwater runoff. The remaining 1,938 ± 541 billion tonnes (49.7 per cent) of ice loss was due to increased glacier dynamical imbalance, which rose from 46 ± 37 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s to 87 ± 25 billion tonnes per year since then. The total rate of ice loss slowed to 222 ± 30 billion tonnes per year between 2013 and 2017, on average, as atmospheric circulation favoured cooler conditions15 and ocean temperatures fell at the terminus of Jakobshavn Isbræ16. Cumulative ice losses from Greenland as a whole have been close to the rates predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their high-end climate warming scenario17, which forecast an additional 70 to 130 millimetres of global sea-level rise by 2100 compared with their central estimate.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Greenland Ice Sheet elevation change.
Fig. 2: Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance.
Fig. 3: Cumulative anomalies in the total mass, SMB and ice dynamics of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Fig. 4: Observed and predicted sea-level contributions from Greenland Ice Sheet mass change.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The aggregated Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance data and estimated errors generated in this study are freely available at http://imbie.org and at the NERC Polar Data Centre, https://doi.org/10.5285/8D5FF221-A470-4CC1-B7C4-CBDF383554FC.

Code availability

The code used to compute and aggregate rates of ice sheet mass change and their estimated errors are freely available at https://github.com/IMBIE.

References

  1. Shepherd, A. et al. A reconciled estimate of ice-sheet mass balance. Science 338, 1183–1189 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group. Global sea-level budget 1993–present. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 1551–1590 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pattyn, F. et al. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets under 1.5 °C global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 1053–1061 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Moon, T., Joughin, I., Smith, B. & Howat, I. 21st-century evolution of Greenland outlet glacier velocities. Science 336, 576–578 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Enderlin, E. M. et al. An improved mass budget for the Greenland ice sheet. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 866–872 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rignot, E. & Kanagaratnam, P. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 311, 986–990 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van den Broeke, M. et al. Partitioning recent Greenland mass loss. Science 326, 984–986 (2009).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Trusel, L. D. et al. Nonlinear rise in Greenland runoff in response to post-industrial Arctic warming. Nature 564, 104–108 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lucas-Picher, P. et al. Very high resolution regional climate model simulations over Greenland: identifying added value. J. Geophys. Res. D 117, 02108 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Holland, D. M., Thomas, R. H., de Young, B., Ribergaard, M. H. & Lyberth, B. Acceleration of Jakobshavn Isbræ triggered by warm subsurface ocean waters. Nat. Geosci. 1, 659–664 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Seale, A., Christoffersen, P., Mugford, R. I. & O’Leary, M. Ocean forcing of the Greenland Ice Sheet: calving fronts and patterns of retreat identified by automatic satellite monitoring of eastern outlet glaciers. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 116, F03013 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Straneo, F. & Heimbach, P. North Atlantic warming and the retreat of Greenland’s outlet glaciers. Nature 504, 36–43 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hanna, E., Mernild, S. H., Cappelen, J. & Steffen, K. Recent warming in Greenland in a long-term instrumental (1881–2012) climatic context: I. Evaluation of surface air temperature records. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 045404 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fettweis, X. et al. Important role of the mid-tropospheric atmospheric circulation in the recent surface melt increase over the Greenland ice sheet. Cryosphere 7, 241–248 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bevis, M. et al. Accelerating changes in ice mass within Greenland, and the ice sheet’s sensitivity to atmospheric forcing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1934–1939 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Khazendar, A. et al. Interruption of two decades of Jakobshavn Isbrae acceleration and thinning as regional ocean cools. Nat. Geosci. 12, 277–283 (2019); correction 12, 493 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Church, J. A. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1137–1216 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  18. Morlighem, M. et al. BedMachine v3: complete bed topography and ocean bathymetry mapping of Greenland from multibeam echo sounding combined with mass conservation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 11,051–11,061 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Joughin, I., Smith, B. E., Howat, I. M., Scambos, T. & Moon, T. Greenland flow variability from ice-sheet-wide velocity mapping. J. Glaciol. 56, 415–430 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zwally, H. J., Giovinetto, M. B., Beckley, M. A. & Saba, J. L. Antarctic and Greenland Drainage Systems (GSFC Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory, 2012); http://icesat4.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo_data/ant_grn_drainage_systems.php.

  21. Fettweis, X. et al. Reconstructions of the 1900–2015 Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance using the regional climate MAR model. Cryosphere 11, 1015–1033 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hofer, S., Tedstone, A. J., Fettweis, X. & Bamber, J. L. Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700584 (2017).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Leeson, A. A. et al. Supraglacial lakes on the Greenland ice sheet advance inland under warming climate. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 51–55 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Palmer, S., McMillan, M. & Morlighem, M. Subglacial lake drainage detected beneath the Greenland ice sheet. Nat. Commun. 6, 8408 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Nick, F. M. et al. The response of Petermann Glacier, Greenland, to large calving events, and its future stability in the context of atmospheric and oceanic warming. J. Glaciol. 58, 229–239 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Joughin, I. et al. Ice-front variation and tidewater behavior on Helheim and Kangerdlugssuaq Glaciers, Greenland. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 113, F01004 (2008).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pritchard, H. D., Arthern, R. J., Vaughan, D. G. & Edwards, L. A. Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Nature 461, 971–975 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McMillan, M. et al. A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7002–7010 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sandberg Sørensen, L. et al. 25 years of elevation changes of the Greenland Ice Sheet from ERS, Envisat, and CryoSat-2 radar altimetry. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 495, 234–241 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Velicogna, I. & Wahr, J. Greenland mass balance from GRACE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L18505 (2005).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Luthcke, S. B. et al. Recent Greenland ice mass loss by drainage system from satellite gravity observations. Science 314, 1286–1289 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zwally, H. J., Bindschadler, R. A., Brenner, A. C., Major, J. A. & Marsh, J. G. Growth of Greenland Ice Sheet: measurement. Science 246, 1587–1589 (1989).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mouginot, J. et al. Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 9239–9244 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lecavalier, B. S. et al. A model of Greenland ice sheet deglaciation constrained by observations of relative sea level and ice extent. Quat. Sci. Rev. 102, 54–84 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. King, M. D. et al. Seasonal to decadal variability in ice discharge from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Cryosphere 12, 3813–3825 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Porter, D. F. et al. Identifying spatial variability in Greenland’s outlet glacier response to ocean heat. Front. Earth Sci. 6, 90 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rignot, E. & Mouginot, J. Ice flow in Greenland for the International Polar Year 2008–2009. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L11501 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sørensen, L. S. et al. Mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet (2003–2008) from ICESat data—the impact of interpolation, sampling and firn density. Cryosphere 5, 173–186 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. Zwally, H. J. et al. Greenland ice sheet mass balance: distribution of increased mass loss with climate warming; 2003–07 versus 1992–2002. J. Glaciol. 57, 88–102 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rosenau, R., Scheinert, M. & Dietrich, R. A processing system to monitor Greenland outlet glacier velocity variations at decadal and seasonal time scales utilizing the Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 169, 1–19 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  41. The IMBIE Team. Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017. Nature 558, 219–222 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Khan, S. A. et al. Geodetic measurements reveal similarities between post–Last Glacial Maximum and present-day mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600931 (2016).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Ettema, J. et al. Higher surface mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet revealed by high-resolution climate modeling. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L12501 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bolch, T. et al. Mass loss of Greenland’s glaciers and ice caps 2003–2008 revealed from ICESat laser altimetry data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 875–881 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. Vernon, C. L. et al. Surface mass balance model intercomparison for the Greenland ice sheet. Cryosphere 7, 599–614 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Noël, B. et al. Modelling the climate and surface mass balance of polar ice sheets using RACMO2—Part 1: Greenland (1958–2016). Cryosphere 12, 811–831 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  47. Howat, I. M., Joughin, I., Fahnestock, M., Smith, B. E. & Scambos, T. A. Synchronous retreat and acceleration of southeast Greenland outlet glaciers 2000–06: ice dynamics and coupling to climate. J. Glaciol. 54, 646–660 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Shepherd, A. & Nowicki, S. Improvements in ice-sheet sea-level projections. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 672–674 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. Markus, T. et al. The Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2): science requirements, concept, and implementation. Remote Sens. Environ. 190, 260–273 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. Flechtner, F. et al. What can be expected from the GRACE-FO laser ranging interferometer for earth science applications? Surv. Geophys. 37, 453–470 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  51. Peltier, W. R., Argus, D. F. & Drummond, R. Space geodesy constrains ice age terminal deglaciation: the global ICE-6G_C (VM5a) model. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 120, 450–487 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. Paulson, A., Zhong, S. & Wahr, J. Inference of mantle viscosity from GRACE and relative sea level data. Geophys. J. Int. 171, 497–508 (2007).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. Peltier, W. R. Global glacial isostasy and the surface of the Ice-Age Earth: the ICE-5G (VM2) model and GRACE. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 32, 111–149 (2004).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Simpson, M. J. R., Milne, G. A., Huybrechts, P. & Long, A. J. Calibrating a glaciological model of the Greenland ice sheet from the Last Glacial Maximum to present-day using field observations of relative sea level and ice extent. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28, 1631–1657 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  55. A, G., Wahr, J. & Zhong, S. Computations of the viscoelastic response of a 3-D compressible Earth to surface loading: an application to glacial isostatic adjustment in Antarctica and Canada. Geophys. J. Int. 192, 557–572 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  56. Schrama, E. J. O., Wouters, B. & Rietbroek, R. A mascon approach to assess ice sheet and glacier mass balances and their uncertainties from GRACE data. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 119, 6048–6066 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  57. Klemann, V. & Martinec, Z. Contribution of glacial-isostatic adjustment to the geocenter motion. Tectonophysics 511, 99–108 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  58. Swenson, S., Chambers, D. & Wahr, J. Estimating geocenter variations from a combination of GRACE and ocean model output. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 113, B08410 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  59. Wouters, B., Bamber, J. L., van den Broeke, M. R., Lenaerts, J. T. M. & Sasgen, I. Limits in detecting acceleration of ice sheet mass loss due to climate variability. Nat. Geosci. 6, 613–616 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Bonin, J. & Chambers, D. Uncertainty estimates of a GRACE inversion modelling technique over Greenland using a simulation. Geophys. J. Int. 194, 212–229 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  61. Blazquez, A. et al. Exploring the uncertainty in GRACE estimates of the mass redistributions at the Earth surface: implications for the global water and sea level budgets. Geophys. J. Int. 215, 415–430 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  62. Forsberg, R., Sørensen, L. & Simonsen, S. Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheet Mass Changes and Effects on Global Sea Level. Surv. Geophys. 38, 89–104 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  63. Groh, A. & Horwath, M. The method of tailored sensitivity kernels for GRACE mass change estimates. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 18, 12065 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Harig, C. & Simons, F. J. Mapping Greenland’s mass loss in space and time. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 19934–19937 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Luthcke, S. B. et al. Antarctica, Greenland and Gulf of Alaska land-ice evolution from an iterated GRACE global mascon solution. J. Glaciol. 59, 613–631 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  66. Andrews, S. B., Moore, P. & King, M. A. Mass change from GRACE: a simulated comparison of Level-1B analysis techniques. Geophys. J. Int. 200, 503–518 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  67. Save, H., Bettadpur, S. & Tapley, B. D. High-resolution CSR GRACE RL05 mascons. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 7547–7569 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  68. Seo, K.-W. et al. Surface mass balance contributions to acceleration of Antarctic ice mass loss during 2003–2013. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 120, 3617–3627 (2015).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Velicogna, I., Sutterley, T. C. & van den Broeke, M. R. Regional acceleration in ice mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica using GRACE time-variable gravity data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 8130–8137 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  70. Vishwakarma, B. D., Horwath, M., Devaraju, B., Groh, A. & Sneeuw, N. A data-driven approach for repairing the hydrological catchment signal damage due to filtering of GRACE products. Wat. Resour. Res. 53, 9824–9844 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  71. Wiese, D. N., Landerer, F. W. & Watkins, M. M. Quantifying and reducing leakage errors in the JPL RL05M GRACE mascon solution. Wat. Resour. Res. 52, 7490–7502 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  72. Ivins, E. R. & James, T. S. Antarctic glacial isostatic adjustment: a new assessment. Antarct. Sci. 17, 541–553 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  73. Ivins, E. R. et al. Antarctic contribution to sea level rise observed by GRACE with improved GIA correction. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 118, 3126–3141 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  74. Rodell, M. et al. The Global Land Data Assimilation System. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 85, 381–394 (2004).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  75. Döll, P., Kaspar, F. & Lehner, B. A global hydrological model for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and validation. J. Hydrol. 270, 105–134 (2003).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  76. Cheng, M., Tapley, B. D. & Ries, J. C. Deceleration in the Earth’s oblateness. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 118, 740–747 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  77. Balmaseda, M. A., Mogensen, K. & Weaver, A. T. Evaluation of the ECMWF ocean reanalysis system ORAS4. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 139, 1132–1161 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  78. Pujol, M.-I. et al. DUACS DT2014: the new multi-mission altimeter data set reprocessed over 20 years. Ocean Sci. 12, 1067–1090 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  79. Menemenlis, D. et al. ECCO2: High resolution global ocean and sea ice data synthesis. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts 2008 OS31C-1292 (AGU, 2008).

  80. Dobslaw, H. et al. Simulating high-frequency atmosphere-ocean mass variability for dealiasing of satellite gravity observations: AOD1B RL05. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 118, 3704–3711 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  81. Carrère, L. & Lyard, F. Modeling the barotropic response of the global ocean to atmospheric wind and pressure forcing – comparisons with observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1275 (2003).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  82. Csatho, B. M. et al. Laser altimetry reveals complex pattern of Greenland Ice Sheet dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18478–18483 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Nilsson, J., Gardner, A., Sandberg Sørensen, L. & Forsberg, R. Improved retrieval of land ice topography from CryoSat-2 data and its impact for volume-change estimation of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Cryosphere 10, 2953–2969 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  84. Gourmelen, N. et al. CryoSat-2 swath interferometric altimetry for mapping ice elevation and elevation change. Adv. Space Res. 62, 1226–1242 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  85. Gunter, B. C. et al. Empirical estimation of present-day Antarctic glacial isostatic adjustment and ice mass change. Cryosphere 8, 743–760 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  86. Helm, V., Humbert, A. & Miller, H. Elevation and elevation change of Greenland and Antarctica derived from CryoSat-2. Cryosphere 8, 1539–1559 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  87. Kjeldsen, K. K. et al. Improved ice loss estimate of the northwestern Greenland ice sheet. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 118, 698–708 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  88. Felikson, D. et al. Comparison of elevation change detection methods from ICESat altimetry over the Greenland Ice Sheet. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 55, 5494–5505 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  89. Andersen, M. L. et al. Basin-scale partitioning of Greenland ice sheet mass balance components (2007–2011). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 409, 89–95 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Colgan, W. et al. Greenland ice sheet mass balance assessed by PROMICE (1995–2015). Geol. Surv. Denmark Greenl. Bull. 43, e2019430201 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  91. van Wessem, J. M. et al. Updated cloud physics in a regional atmospheric climate model improves the modelled surface energy balance of Antarctica. Cryosphere 8, 125–135 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  92. Fettweis, X. et al. Estimating the Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance contribution to future sea level rise using the regional atmospheric climate model MAR. Cryosphere 7, 469–489 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  93. Wahr, J., Wingham, D. & Bentley, C. A method of combining ICESat and GRACE satellite data to constrain Antarctic mass balance. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 105, 16279–16294 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Lambeck, K., Rouby, H., Purcell, A., Sun, Y. & Sambridge, M. Closing the sea level budget at the Last Glacial Maximum. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15861–15862 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Caron, L., Métivier, L., Greff-Lefftz, M., Fleitout, L. & Rouby, H. Inverting Glacial Isostatic Adjustment signal using Bayesian framework and two linearly relaxing rheologies. Geophys. J. Int. 209, 1126–1147 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  96. Sun, Y., Riva, R. & Ditmar, P. Optimizing estimates of annual variations and trends in geocenter motion and J2 from a combination of GRACE data and geophysical models. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121, 8352–8370 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  97. Nagler, T., Rott, H., Hetzenecker, M., Wuite, J. & Potin, P. The Sentinel-1 Mission: New Opportunities for Ice Sheet Observations. Remote Sens. 7, 9371–9389 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  98. Mouginot, J., Rignot, E., Scheuchl, B. & Millan, R. Comprehensive annual ice sheet velocity mapping using Landsat-8, Sentinel-1, and RADARSAT-2 data. Remote Sens. 9, 364 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  99. Joughin, I., Smith, B. E. & Howat, I. Greenland Ice Mapping Project: ice flow velocity variation at sub-monthly to decadal timescales. Cryosphere 12, 2211–2227 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Lemos, A. et al. Ice velocity of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Petermann Glacier, Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, and Zachariæ Isstrøm, 2015–2017, from Sentinel 1-a/b SAR imagery. Cryosphere 12, 2087–2097 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  101. Joughin, I. et al. Continued evolution of Jakobshavn Isbrae following its rapid speedup. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 113, F04006 (2008).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  102. Joughin, I., Abdalati, W. & Fahnestock, M. Large fluctuations in speed on Greenland’s Jakobshavn Isbræ glacier. Nature 432, 608–610 (2004).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Gogineni, S. et al. Coherent radar ice thickness measurements over the Greenland ice sheet. J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 106, 33761–33772 (2001).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  104. Rignot, E. et al. Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling. Nat. Geosci. 1, 106–110 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Shepherd, A. et al. Trends in Antarctic Ice Sheet elevation and mass. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 8174–8183 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  106. Martinec, Z. & Hagedoorn, J. The rotational feedback on linear-momentum balance in glacial isostatic adjustment. Geophys. J. Int. 199, 1823–1846 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  107. Fretwell, P. et al. Bedmap2: improved ice bed, surface and thickness datasets for Antarctica. Cryosphere 7, 375–393 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  108. Rignot, E., Mouginot, J. & Scheuchl, B. Ice flow of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Science 333, 1427–1430 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Rignot, E., Mouginot, J. & Scheuchl, B. Antarctic grounding line mapping from differential satellite radar interferometry. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L10504 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  110. Langen, P. L., Fausto, R. S., Vandecrux, B., Mottram, R. H. & Box, J. E. Liquid water flow and retention on the Greenland Ice Sheet in the regional climate model HIRHAM5: local and large-scale impacts. Front. Earth Sci. 4, 110 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  111. Martinec, Z. Spectral–finite element approach to three-dimensional viscoelastic relaxation in a spherical earth. Geophys. J. Int. 142, 117–141 (2000).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  112. Fleming, K. & Lambeck, K. Constraints on the Greenland Ice Sheet since the Last Glacial Maximum from sea-level observations and glacial-rebound models. Quat. Sci. Rev. 23, 1053–1077 (2004).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  113. King, M. A., Whitehouse, P. L. & van der Wal, W. Incomplete separability of Antarctic plate rotation from glacial isostatic adjustment deformation within geodetic observations. Geophys. J. Int. 204, 324–330 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  114. Spada, G., Melini, D. & Colleoni, F. SELEN v2.9.12 (Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamics, 2018); https://geodynamics.org/cig/software/selen.

  115. Noël, B. et al. Evaluation of the updated regional climate model RACMO2.3: summer snowfall impact on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Cryosphere 9, 1831–1844 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  116. Noël, B. et al. A daily, 1 km resolution data set of downscaled Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance (1958–2015). Cryosphere 10, 2361–2377 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  117. Gelaro, R. et al. The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2). J. Clim. 30, 5419–5454 (2017).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Wilton, D. J. et al. High resolution (1 km) positive degree-day modelling of Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance, 1870–2012 using reanalysis data. J. Glaciol. 63, 176–193 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  119. Mernild, S. H., Liston, G. E., Hiemstra, C. A. & Christensen, J. H. Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass-balance modeling in a 131-yr perspective, 1950–2080. J. Hydrometeorol. 11, 3–25 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is an outcome of the IMBIE supported by the ESA Climate Change Initiative and the NASA Cryosphere Program. A.S. was additionally supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award and the UK Natural Environment Research Council Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling.

Author information

Author notes

  1. A list of participants and their affiliations appears at the end of the paper

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Andrew Shepherd, Kate Briggs, Anna E. Hogg, Ines Otosaka & Thomas Slater

  2. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    Erik Ivins, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Nicole Schlegel, Alex Gardner, Johan Nilsson, Matthieu Talpe & David Wiese

  3. Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

    Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Geruo A, Yara Mohajerani, Jeremie Mouginot, Bernd Scheuchl & Tyler Sutterley

  4. Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Ben Smith & Ian Joughin

  5. Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Michiel van den Broeke, Brice Noël, Willem Jan van de Berg, Melchior van Wessem & Bert Wouters

  6. Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham, UK

    Pippa Whitehouse & Grace Nield

  7. Institute of Environmental Geosciences, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France

    Gerhard Krinner, Hubert Gallee & Jeremie Mouginot

  8. Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA

    Sophie Nowicki, Denis Felikson, Bryant Loomis & Scott Luthcke

  9. School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Tony Payne

  10. Earth Science and Observation Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Ted Scambos

  11. Department of Geography, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Cécile Agosta & Xavier Fettweis

  12. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Andreas Ahlstrøm, William Colgan & Kristian K. Kjeldsen

  13. Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Greg Babonis & Beata Csatho

  14. DTU Space, National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

    Valentina R. Barletta, Rene Forsberg, Shfaqat Khan, Louise Sandberg Sørensen & Sebastian B. Simonsen

  15. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Anders A. Bjørk

  16. LEGOS, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France

    Alejandro Blazquez

  17. College of Marine Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Jennifer Bonin

  18. Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA

    Richard Cullather

  19. ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy

    Marcus E. Engdahl

  20. Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St Mary, UK

    Lin Gilbert & Alan Muir

  21. School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Noel Gourmelen

  22. Institute for Planetary Geodesy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Andreas Groh, Martin Horwath & Ludwig Schröder

  23. Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Brian Gunter

  24. School of Geography, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

    Edward Hanna

  25. Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Christopher Harig

  26. Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

    Veit Helm, Ingo Sasgen & Ludwig Schröder

  27. Institute of Astronomical and Physical Geodesy, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Alexander Horvath

  28. GeoGenetics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Kristian K. Kjeldsen

  29. Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach, Germany

    Hannes Konrad

  30. Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Peter L. Langen & Ruth Mottram

  31. Department of Physics and Physical Oceanography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

    Benoit Lecavalier & Lev Tarasov

  32. Lancaster Environment Centre, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK

    Malcolm McMillan

  33. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy

    Daniele Melini

  34. Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre, Bergen, Norway

    Sebastian Mernild

  35. Faculty of Engineering and Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal, Norway

    Sebastian Mernild

  36. Direction of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Programs, Universidad de Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Chile

    Sebastian Mernild

  37. Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Sebastian Mernild

  38. School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Philip Moore

  39. isardSAT, Barcelona, Catalonia

    Gorka Moyano & Mark E. Pattle

  40. ENVEO, Innsbruck, Austria

    Thomas Nagler, Helmut Rott & Jan Wuite

  41. Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    W. Richard Peltier

  42. Center for Space Research, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Nadège Pie & Himanshu Save

  43. Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Roelof Rietbroek

  44. Department of Space Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ernst Schrama & Wouter van der Wal

  45. Department of Earth Science Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Ki-Weon Seo

  46. Dipartimento di Scienze Pure e Applicate, Università di Urbino “Carlo Bo”, Urbino, Italy

    Giorgio Spada

  47. Department of Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Wouter van der Wal & Bert Wouters

  48. Geodetic Institute, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Bramha Dutt Vishwakarma

  49. Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    David Wilton

  50. NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, USA

    Thomas Wagner

Consortia

The IMBIE Team

  • Andrew Shepherd
  • , Erik Ivins
  • , Eric Rignot
  • , Ben Smith
  • , Michiel van den Broeke
  • , Isabella Velicogna
  • , Pippa Whitehouse
  • , Kate Briggs
  • , Ian Joughin
  • , Gerhard Krinner
  • , Sophie Nowicki
  • , Tony Payne
  • , Ted Scambos
  • , Nicole Schlegel
  • , Geruo A
  • , Cécile Agosta
  • , Andreas Ahlstrøm
  • , Greg Babonis
  • , Valentina R. Barletta
  • , Anders A. Bjørk
  • , Alejandro Blazquez
  • , Jennifer Bonin
  • , William Colgan
  • , Beata Csatho
  • , Richard Cullather
  • , Marcus E. Engdahl
  • , Denis Felikson
  • , Xavier Fettweis
  • , Rene Forsberg
  • , Anna E. Hogg
  • , Hubert Gallee
  • , Alex Gardner
  • , Lin Gilbert
  • , Noel Gourmelen
  • , Andreas Groh
  • , Brian Gunter
  • , Edward Hanna
  • , Christopher Harig
  • , Veit Helm
  • , Alexander Horvath
  • , Martin Horwath
  • , Shfaqat Khan
  • , Kristian K. Kjeldsen
  • , Hannes Konrad
  • , Peter L. Langen
  • , Benoit Lecavalier
  • , Bryant Loomis
  • , Scott Luthcke
  • , Malcolm McMillan
  • , Daniele Melini
  • , Sebastian Mernild
  • , Yara Mohajerani
  • , Philip Moore
  • , Ruth Mottram
  • , Jeremie Mouginot
  • , Gorka Moyano
  • , Alan Muir
  • , Thomas Nagler
  • , Grace Nield
  • , Johan Nilsson
  • , Brice Noël
  • , Ines Otosaka
  • , Mark E. Pattle
  • , W. Richard Peltier
  • , Nadège Pie
  • , Roelof Rietbroek
  • , Helmut Rott
  • , Louise Sandberg Sørensen
  • , Ingo Sasgen
  • , Himanshu Save
  • , Bernd Scheuchl
  • , Ernst Schrama
  • , Ludwig Schröder
  • , Ki-Weon Seo
  • , Sebastian B. Simonsen
  • , Thomas Slater
  • , Giorgio Spada
  • , Tyler Sutterley
  • , Matthieu Talpe
  • , Lev Tarasov
  • , Willem Jan van de Berg
  • , Wouter van der Wal
  • , Melchior van Wessem
  • , Bramha Dutt Vishwakarma
  • , David Wiese
  • , David Wilton
  • , Thomas Wagner
  • , Bert Wouters
  •  & Jan Wuite

Contributions

A.S. and E.I. designed and led the study. E.R., B.S., M.v.d.B., I.V. and P.W. led the IOM, altimetry, SMB, gravimetry and GIA experiments, respectively. G.K., S.N., T.P. and T. Scambos provided additional supervision on glaciology, K.B., A.H., I.J., M.E.E. and T.W. provided additional supervision on satellite observations and N.S. provided additional supervision on GIA. G.M., M.E.P. and T. Slater performed the mass balance data collation and analysis. T. Slater performed the AR5 data analysis. P.W. and I.S. performed the GIA data analysis. M.v.W. and T. Slater performed the SMB data analysis. A.S., E.I., K.B., M.E., N.G., A.H., H.K., M.M., I.O., I.S., T. Slater, M.v.W. and P.W. wrote the manuscript. A.S. led the writing, E.I., K.B., M.E., and T. Slater led the drafting and editing, M.v.W. led the SMB text, P.W. and I.S. led the GIA text and N.G., A.H., H.K., M.M. and I.O. contributed elsewhere. A.S., K.B., H.K., G.M., M.E.P, I.S., S.B.S., T. Slater, P.W. and M.v.W. prepared the figures and tables, with particular focus on Fig. 1 (S.B.S), Fig. 3 (T. Slater), Fig. 4 (T. Slater), Extended Data Fig. 2 (K.B.), Extended Data Fig. 3 (P.W.), Extended Data Fig. 2 (M.v.W.), Extended Data Table 1 (P.W. and I.S.), Extended Data Table 2 (M.v.W.) and Supplementary Table 1 (H.K. and T. Slater). G.M. and M.E.P. led the production of all other figures and tables. All authors participated in the data interpretation and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Shepherd.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Christina Hulbe, Andreas Kääb and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Ice sheet mass balance datasets.

a, Participant datasets used in this study and their main contributors. b, The number of data available in each calendar year. The interval 2003–2010 includes almost all datasets and is selected as the overlap period. Further details of the satellite observations used in this study are provided in Supplementary Table 1. Refs. 28, 33, 38, 56, 59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71, 82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Greenland Ice Sheet drainage basins.

a, b, Basin used in this study, according to the definitions of ref. 20 (a) and ref. 37 (b).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Modelled glacial isostatic adjustment in Greenland.

a, b, Bedrock uplift rates in Greenland averaged over the GIA model solutions used in this study (a) and their standard deviation (b). Further details of the GIA models used in this study are provided in Extended Data Table 1. High rates of uplift and subsidence associated with the former Laurentide Ice Sheet are apparent to the southwest of Greenland.

Extended Data Fig. 4 SMB of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

a–f, Time series of SMB in the NW, CW, SW, SE, NE and NO Greenland Ice Sheet drainage basins (Extended Data Fig. 2)108,109. Solid lines are annual averages of the monthly data (dashed lines). Further details of the SMB models used in this study are provided in Extended Data Table 2.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance intracomparison.

a–c, Individual rates of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance used in this study as determined from satellite altimetry (a), gravimetry (b) and the input–output method (c). The grey shading shows the estimated 1σ (dark), 2σ (mid-) and 3σ (light) uncertainty relative to the ensemble average. Refs. 28,33,38,56,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance intercomparison.

Rate of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance as derived from the three techniques: satellite radar and laser altimetry (red), input–output method (blue) and gravimetry (green). Their arithmetic mean is shown in grey. The estimated uncertainty is also shown (shaded envelopes) and is computed as the root mean square of the component time-series errors.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Cumulative Greenland Ice Sheet SMB.

The cumulative surface mass change determined from an average (mean) of the RACMO2.3p246, MARv3.621 and HIRHAM9 regional climate models relative to their 1980–1990 means (see Methods). The estimated uncertainty of the mean change is also shown (shaded area), computed as the average of the uncertainties from each of the three models. RACMO2.3p2 uncertainties are based on a comparison to in situ observations33. MARv3.6 uncertainties are evaluated from the variability due to forcing from climate reanalyses21. HIRHAM uncertainties are estimated on the basis of comparisons to in situ accumulation and ablation data110. Cumulative uncertainties are computed as the root sum square of annual errors, on the assumption that these errors are not correlated over time17.

Extended Data Table 1 Details of GIA models used in this study
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Details of the SMB models used in this study
Full size table
Extended Data Table 3 Rate of Greenland Ice Sheet mass change for 2005–2015
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Table 1 | Details of satellite datasets used in this study.

This file contains: 1.1 Data sets and methods employed by participants of the gravimetry experiment group; 1.2 Data sets and methods employed by participants of the radar and laser altimetry experiment group; 1.3 Data sets and methods employed by participants of the mass budget experiment group; and Supplementary References.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

The IMBIE Team. Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018. Nature 579, 233–239 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1855-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1855-2

This article is cited by

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. Fraser Ritchie

    Question; (I am sorry I do not have access to the complete article so if I sound like and idiot I apologise in advance) I was wondering how one would calculate the upward deflection of the earths crust directly below Greenland and its additional potential impact on ocean rise. Was this part of the calculation or was the only volume of melt water included in the ocean rise estimate? Thnks

  2. Ken Lord Replied to Fraser Ritchie

    You're talking about isostatic re-adjustment which will lag behind by hundreds to thousands of years. It would affect the apparent local sea levels around greenland, while the absolute sea level goes up from the melt water.

  3. Pman Replied to Ken Lord

    An isostatic adjustment you never hear about is by how much adding water to the oceans will depress the sea floor and push up continents generally. Back of the envelope guess is that it reduces ocean rise by 1/4 to 1/3 given that water is about 1/3 as dense as continental silicates. So if all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland adds 60 meters to water depth, you can figure that that will only come to 40-45 meters of sea level rise given time for the underlying global mantle to adjust.

  4. Pman Replied to Fraser Ritchie

    Central Greenland's bedrock is depressed to just a couple hundred meters below sea level. The part of the 3 km thick ice sheet that is below sea level and would drain off as the land rose above sea level is therefore very small. A more interesting question is how much the rise of Greenland bedrock would reduce global sea level. When Greenland gained ice, the semi-solid mantle underneath was squeezed out under the surrounding ocean. With the ice gone, the weight of the ocean will push that mantle back under Greenland and under other continental margins.

  5. allangee

    CLIMATE references with a 30-ish year time span? Ludicrous.

  6. Jeff Rankinen

    Generation IV nuclear reactors are the fix for human-made global warming.

  7. gordo53 Replied to Jeff Rankinen

    Thorium? Good luck with that.

  8. Pman Replied to gordo53

    Fusion is the only answer to AGW and many other long-term problems such as fossil fuel depletion. Everything else is distraction and ulterior agendas.

  9. gordo53 Replied to Pman

    Haven't seen any encouraging news lately. Still working on the "magnetic bottle" or is there something new and improved in the area of containment?

  10. disqus_DDEkcLuNfY

    what did it look like 12,500 years ago? 5 miles thick ice on seattle.

  11. Joe O'Bremski

    So what your saying is... no beach front property in Las Vegas anytime soon... :(

  12. Ward Shaw

    Bull

  13. gordo53

    Why is all the climate hysteria such big news? There is absolutely nothing the US can do unilaterally that will have any effect on the problem. We are already well past the "tipping point" on radical climate change. Can't we find something else to obsess about?

  14. ndale27 Replied to gordo53

    You are nicely illustrating the Tragedy of the Commons, the idea that because no one party's individual action can solve a problem, it is "logical" to continue on one's selfish path, the cumulative effect is destruction of the common. And this is what will happen if no significant international player (like USA, China, India etc.) breaks away from that tragic logic and does the right thing. As for "obsessing", sure, lots to obsess about otherwise - corona virus, the Middle East, the disgraceful and widening gap between what top executives earn compared to the rest of us. I think we can obsess about all of the above and more.

  15. gordo53 Replied to ndale27

    So I assume from your post that you're doing all you can to combat climate change. Here are few ideas in case you missed them.
    1. Stop eating meat. Livestock farming produces copious amounts of methane, a very strong greenhouse gas.
    2. Sell your car. Move closer to work so you can walk or bicycle or at least live on a public transportation route.

    3. NEVER fly anywhere.
    4. Turn off your air conditioning in the summer and in the winter use only enough heat to keep the pipes from freezing. Most of the world's population have no personal climate control.

    5. And of course, urge all your friends and relatives to do the same.
    There are other measures, but this is a good start. Be happy in knowing you're doing all you can.

  16. Ron McCune

    I want ALL of you to realize that before the Ice Age on Earth that the Earth did NOT experience the winters that we use to have about 60 years ago and had since the Ice Age. Since 1960 when global warming started due to the introduction of jet engine airplanes, rockets and rocket weapons which drastically increased the heat in the upper atmosphere where rain clouds form, the Earth stopped having the normal winters we use to have and progressed into the kind of winters we have now which in no way compare to the kind of winters we had before 1960. If the Earth continues on the path it is on today the Earth will be doomed to not being able to support life on Earth for us humans.
    So let me lay out to you a way to end global warming easily! First I want all of you to google search a site called flightradar24.com and on that site is a display of all the commercial flights of jet engine airplanes that are flying at that moment worldwide. Throughout the day there are around 90,000 flights. This site does not include military jet airplanes or military jet propelled weapons or rockets of any kind. I assume that that amount is very high and much more damaging to our environment. Here's why, commercial jet planes heated exhaust ranges from 800 to 1200 degrees and military jet planes heated exhaust ranges from 1200 to 2500 degrees. So what is happening daily is that around the globe daily we are putting a lot of hot air and jet engine pollutants into our upper atmosphere from these jet engine airplanes. Also these jet engine airplanes are gigantic vacuum machines that are sucking up rain and cloud producing water molecules in our upper atmosphere. That is why the Earth has less clouds now around the Earth than it did before the 1960's when jet engine airplanes started flying in mass around the planet. Check out the weather maps and you will see that the Earth had much more clouds before 1960. Check out the weather maps from the week after 9/11 Twin Towers attack when worldwide airplane flights around the world were grounded. You will see a massive increase of clouds worldwide! Before the 1960's we used mainly propeller airplanes which don't suck up and heat air as jet engine airplanes do. We have to go back to only using propeller airplanes in order to end global warming immediately! It's as simple as that! It's an easy way to stop heating up our atmosphere. The cold air coming into the Earth's atmosphere from outer space is the only reason the Earth hasn't heated up yet from the Sun in all the years of the Earth's existence. Clouds are the only thing that Earth has that can stop the Sun's rays from heating the Earth and the only thing that the Earth has that can produce rain. Vegetation and trees are the only thing on Earth that produces moisture/water molecules in our atmosphere. Jet engine airplanes, weapons and rockets are the only thing we humans put up into our upper atmosphere that is so hot that it over powers the cold air coming from outer space into our Earth's atmosphere. Our cities are too far apart to have create the kind heat needed to create global warming that the Earth is now encountering. Jet engine airplanes are the main cause of global warming so let's all stop flying them!
    Think about this. Before the Ice Age the Earth REALLY didn't have much cold winters. The weather before the Ice Age allowed vegetation and trees to grow all the way up in Alaska and all the other places that are now cold areas of the Earth. In fact I believe we didn't have much cold air around the world at all before the Ice Age. The Ice Age gave the planet all the ice we have seen on the North and South Poles and all the glaciers around the world. There is NO WAY Mother Nature can reproduce the amount of ice again again around the world as it did when the Ice Age happened. A super volcano somewhere on Earth erupted millions of years ago and all it's volcano ash block out the sun for many years which then caused the Ice Age. The ONLY way the Earth will be able to have as much ice as it did before the current global warming started in 1960 is for the Earth to experience another super volcano eruption.
    Because of global warming the Earth is headed for the way the Earth was before the Ice Age. Unfortunately we humans will in no way be able to survive as we do today in that kind of world which has no cold winters! Farming like we have today will not be possible anymore because the Earth will be getting much less rain. The Earth's water will evaporate from the heat of the Sun. Streams and rivers will first quickly disappear as all life around it either dies or go on a constant move looking for livable areas on the planet. Mass chaos by people worldwide will only add to everyone's problems as humans and animals fight for whatever is left on Earth for them to survive. Insects will drastically multiply and kill millions of people and animals as the insects spread their diseases worldwide.
    Some now think that the Earth will evolve to how the Earth was before the Ice Age once the North and South Poles and the glaciers around the world are melted. That will not happen because before the Ice Age there was mostly trees and vegetation around the world. That is not so today. Also the earth atmosphere had a lot more oxygen and moisture in the atmosphere to sustain a world with as much trees and vegetation as it had before the Ice Age. And I doubt if the winters were as cold worldwide before the Ice Age as they were before 1960 and even today.
    So think about all these things before you vote because whoever controls our government is going to have to save us from this hell, this global warming situation we humans have put this planet in! Do ANY of you trust Trump and the Republicans to save the planet from destruction!

  17. gordo53 Replied to Ron McCune

    Lovely, long post. Please explain how ANY politician or political party in this country is going to solve the problem. The quick answer is they can't. So all the hype about climate change is just that. Given the track record of the human race, we're due for a little adversity, don't you think?

  18. drink me

    Subject: How many coal-fueled power plants are
    there in the world today?

    How many coal-fueled power plants are there in the world today?

    The EU has 468 - building 27 more... Total 495

    Turkey has 56 - building 93 more... Total 149

    South Africa has 79 - building 24 more... Total 103

    India has 589 - building 446 more... Total 1036

    Philippines has 19 - building 60 more... Total 79

    South Korea has 58 - building 26 more... Total 84

    Japan has 90 - building 45 more... Total 135

    China has 2,363 - building 1,171 more... Total 3,534

    That’s 5,615 projected coal powered plants in just 8 countries.

    USA has 15 - building 0 more...Total 15

  19. Lonnie G. McCracken

    I was wondering if there has been any thought in controlling the Jetstream. The hottest location on Earth should be the equator. Most of the equator is ocean. If the ocean was cooled at the equator, wouldn't that help control severe winds? This could be achieved by pumping surface water towards the cooler water underneath or by spraying the water into the upper atmosphere to the point that it would turn into ice and fall back into the ocean.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing