Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Greenland ice sheet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Greenland ice sheet was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 29, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() |
|
Jens Nielsen 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"It was estimated that in the year 2007 Greenland ice sheet lost 592 km3 of its mass. [11]" Actually the source says that greenland MELT during the SUMMER that amount. It also gained mass by snowfalls etc. According to the source, net lost was only 65 km3. However, I guess that only counts the melt/snowfall, but not icebergs etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.199.26 ( talk) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement "If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt away completely, the world's sea level would rise by more than 7 m (23 ft).[41]" is inaccurate. The article states the volume of the ice is "approximately 2,850,000 km3". The article entitled "Oceans" states that the surface area of the oceans of the planet is approximately "3.6×10(8) km2". Divide the volume by the area results in an increased depth of .77cm, not the 7m stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Really Just Al ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
2,850,000 cubic kilometres spread over 360,000,000 square kilometres gives a height of 7.92 metres. I'm guessing you did the calculation by dividing the two, then assumed a height of 1 metre rather than a kilometre. Easy mistake to make, but you really should check more carefully when criticising other people's arithmetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greylib ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This is somehow misleading, without taking into account the Post-glacial rebound. The melting of such a mass of ice will certainly been followed by isostatic ajustment, like currently in Scandinavia. universimmedia 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope I'm not just being anal, but isn't it incorrect to say "in mass" there, since km3 is a measure of volume?
I know scientists are very careful not to say anything about this, but what are the estimates of the time Greenland Ice Sheet takes to melt ? 1500 years (as in the end of the last ice age) - 150 years (as there's ~10 times less ice than in the last ice age)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.60.138 ( talk) 07:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
- Quick answer: We don't know. Between 50 and 1500 years.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.252.131 ( talk) 10:21, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Great example of scientific innumeracy from questioner and answerer. Time frame = amount of ice/loss rate = 3 million / 200 = 15,000 years roughly. Of course this calculation is not done in the article because the answer is not sufficiently alarming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 ( talk) 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Then add the tracking of accumulated changes by ponding causing accelerated change in the ice sheet in the earthquake record ....
Another dynamic of melting ice happens with such events as the Missoula Floods.-- Smkolins ( talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Because the overwhelming majority of humans in the world live near the water, it would inundated almost every major coastal city in the world, absent heroic mitigation." does not make sense. 1) IF TRUE? then regardless of the number of people living near water, it would still inundate (not -inundated) almost every major coastal city in the world. 2) also "absent heroic mitigation" does not reflect any fact, and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia. My suggestion is: 1) delete it altogether, or 2) change it to: "This would inundate most coastal cities in the world and remove several small island countries from the face of Earth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.210.234 ( talk • contribs)
It's worthy of note that the mass loss is due more to the ice flow in the outlet glaciers than to melting on the ice sheet (at least since 1996). [2] Should the section on melting be rewritten to reflect this? 71.32.19.55 ( talk) 01:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC) I do not see a mistake in the increased melting section, but you are correct and so I added a section on the mechanism and examples of glacier acceleration which demonstrate that it is a change at the calving front that is driving the acceleration not enhanced meltwater production. Peltoms ( talk) 16:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This news story...
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland23-2008aug23,0,750881.story
...claims Petermann Glacier has a huge crack, and is about to calve a mega-iceberg.
Could someone who knows anything about the situation Wikify Petermann Glacier, then, maybe, point to the crack on those satellite photos? They all look like a bunch of ice to us civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.171.42 ( talk) 20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Also der Wikipedia Artikel beruht auf Quellen des IPCC. Die Groesse des Eisschildes Greenlandes wird mit 1.700.000 Quadratkilometer angeben. Haben die beim IPCC einen Erdglobus? Bei dem koennen sie das Gradssytem der Nordhalbkugel sehr gut betrachten, dieses unterteilt die Nordhalbkugel in 90 Kreise. Davon umfasst der Nordpol mit 90 Grad und 360 Graden eine Flaeche von Null Quadratmetern. Und nun behaupten die Referenzquellen auf die Kreisflaechen zwischen dem 83 Grad und dem 63 Grad bzw. dem 20 bis 60 Grad (Hauptflaeche liegt zwischen dem 30 und 50 Grad) soll eine Flaeche von 1.700.000.000 Quadratmetern passen. Ohne das genau auszurechnen, schaetze ich mal, dass es als Mathematiker und Geograph unmoeglich ist, bei diesen Gradzahlen des Erdglobuses von Groenland eine Flaeche 1.700.000.000 Quadratmeter Eisschild unterzubringen, rein mathematisch (Kreisflaechenberechnung Kugelberechung) und geographisch unmoeglich ist (koennen sie auch mit einem Zirkel nachpruefen). Ich schaetze das Eisschild von Greenland hat auf Grund von Mathematischen und Geographischen Gegebenheiten eine moegliche Groesse von 170 Millionen bis 350 Millionen Quadratmetern. Das gleiche gilt wahrscheinlich auch genauso fuer das Antarktische Eisschild, dass im Greenland Eisschild Artikel Wikipedia erwaehnt wird (Link).
http://rapidshare.com/files/309919401/FOI2009.zip
Is Al Gore writing this article? The IPCC? Greenpeace? It is so blatantly biased that its global-warming fear mongering shouts out from every corner. Are we supposed to get objective data and facts or is this a cry to stop the alleged "global warming?" Can we stop reading about this "if all the ice of Greenland were to melt" warning at every opportunity (even when it is entirely out of context)? I am not even going to try to fix anything here, since it is painfully obvious that the global warming tzars will immediately undo any such edits. Deep Guy ( talk) 14:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The statement had been that "at this rate, it would melt in 11,900" years and had cited a 2001 report by IPCC. Since this report is not the msot recent, I had earlier today updated the sentence to "At this rate of ice loss the IPCC estimated in 2001 that Greenland ice sheet would melt in 11,900 years" However there are several additional problems:
For all these reasons and especially the third, I've removed this sentence. (The 2001 reference (currently ref [2] in the article) is still there and is cited in other parts of the article. For useful background on point 3. see [4] foremost; also [5]) Harel ( talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The Al Gore, and the other Climate Change is all America's fault forget to mention that millions of years ago when there was no connection between South America, and Central/North America. The Panama Gap was wide open for any ship or whale to pass from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there was no northern ice pack at all. The climate was very warm. I am unsure what prehistoric automobile company was to blame. The fact is the climate would change on earth regardless of what creature is at the top of the food chain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.200.121 ( talk) 21:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
why there is ice sheet on greenland while not near it in canada and not in similar places in siberia? i have found this: http://200.ksu.ru/index.php?sci_news=451 , http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/uob-wig082608.php . so, it is unknown by modern science. -- Qdinar ( talk) 06:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually neither article contains any significant discussion about the question "ice sheet on greenland while not near it in canada." Both articles are concerned with the question about what caused the drop in CO2 concentration and the formation of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the Late Pliocene. The Eureka Alert press release, "Why is Greenland covered in ice?" lacks any discussion of "why there is ice sheet on greenland while not near it in canada and not in similar places in siberia." It only discusses the idea that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide can "explain the transition from the mostly ice-free Greenland of three million years ago, to the ice-covered Greenland." Both press release and the August 28, 2008 Nature paper ("Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels" by Daniel J. Lunt, Gavin L. Foster, and others), which it discusses, neither mentions anything about Qdinar's question nor states anything about the location of the current Greenland Ice Sheet being a mystery. Thus, it is completely incorrect to claim that either the press release or the Nature paper can be used to support the "unknown by modern science" conclusion. In the Russian article, the reference to the question about why the ice sheet now covers Greenland and not Canada and Siberia is a single sentence that asks,
Clarify why Greenland is covered with ice, while the respective territories of Canada and Siberia in the summer is completely free of snow, it is, however, also can not be.
The Russian article completely lacks any significant discussion of why its author believes this is a mystery. As it is written, this sentence is only a personal opinion that lacks any scientific arguments to back it up and, as a result, fails the WP:RS criteria. Given the lack of any scientific justification for this opinion in this article, it is useless as any unsubstantiated and undocumented opinion about any matter is for Wikipedia purposes. Besides, the fact of the matter is that continental ice sheets once covered Canada and Europe nearest Greenland during the Last Glacial Maximum. They melted before Greenland did as climate warmed from the Last Glacial Maximum because of meteorological and oceanographic factors, of which the author of Russian article apparently lacks any knowledge, that are well-documented in the scientific literature. Paul H. ( talk) 14:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Some cursory searches didn't seem to find this in the article, so I'll note it here and more active participants can put it in the right place. One fun bit of trivia is that even when the glaciers covered most of Canada and the central United States they don't seem to have covered the northeast corner of Greenland (parts of the Northeast National Park). Rainfall and whatnot seem to have worked to keep the area a barren rocky desert regardless of how cold it got or how much ice ringed it. (Might bear some double checking, since is mid-20th century source; still, cool if true). — LlywelynII 13:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The section on surface melting only mentions data up to 2002. This needs to be updated with considerations of more recent events, notably, the period in mid-July 2012 where something like 97% of the surface area of the ice sheet experienced melting. EthicsEdinburgh ( talk) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If the temperature is projected to increase to where tipping points such as methane releases occur generating feedback loops where the melting occurs faster, and scientists already observe the rate of melting is showing surprising acceleration, won't the thousands of years presently projected for the ice caps to melt completely be reduced as substantially as the warming is increased? On other words, is it correct that if the rate of warming is doubled the time of melting would be halved, and if multiplied by a factor of ten the same? 12.187.94.154 ( talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
How can the planes from WW2 be buried under 80m of ice ? more than 1.7 m each year (47 years) against the model. I've read that the corpses of vikings were unburied there some years ago. How could it be named GREENland instead of Whiteland or Frostland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.138.162 ( talk) 04:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It is currently stated that the melting of the ice sheet would result in a 7.2 metre rise in sea level. However an article in Nature implies up to a 13 metre rise, to quote: "global mean sea level 6 to 13 metres above the present level around 410,000 to 400,000 years ago, implying substantial mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet". http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7506/full/nature13456.html Royalcourtier ( talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The ice sheet, consisting of layers of compressed snow from more than 100,000 years, contains in its ice today's most valuable record of past climates.
Claiming that it is the most valuable record is quite presumptive. What about the Antarctic ice cores that go back further in time are they not more valuable since they hold more information?
Haloway13 ( talk) 20:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The ice sheet, consisting of layers of compressed snow from more than 100,000 years, contains in its ice today's most valuable record of past climates.
Claiming that it is the most valuable record is quite presumptive. What about the Antarctic ice cores that go back further in time are they not more valuable since they hold more information?
Haloway13 ( talk) 20:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Greenland ice sheet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This article seems extremely lacking in information on the actual ice sheet itself, seemingly like a lot of others. Compare to Ross Ice Shelf for a more relevant article on a similar feature. Has anyone considered reworking this to be more about the ice sheet itself and less about climate change? 156.57.210.83 ( talk) 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I am looking for informations about the seasonal changing, but there are the datas for this topic? -- Fmrauch ( talk) 12:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Nonlinear rise in Greenland runoff in response to post-industrial Arctic warming Science News summary A new method for observationally determining past melt rates is developed and pre-industrial rates are compared to the present day. Rates are increasing and will continue to increase with further warming. From the abstract
The nonlinearity of melt response is key and it helps to address questions below about time to melt the ice sheet and so on. Ecwiebe ( talk) 17:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The article says "Indlandsis" is the Danish term for the ice cap, but in Danish, we actually say "Indlandsisen". The last -en is the definitive article. We use the definitive, because Indlandsisen only refers to the Greenland Ice Cap. 77.233.228.141 ( talk) 09:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Reworking this big article is a big project, but for anybody who wants to dig in, I found some good recent RS. [1] [2] [3] HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
References
From September 2019 to August 2020, the Greenland Ice Sheet experienced higher ice loss than the 1981-2010 average but substantially lower than the record 2018/19 loss. Glaciers and ice sheets outside of Greenland have continued a trend of significant ice loss, dominated largely by ice loss from Alaska and Arctic Canada.
For the past five years, scientists with the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission have been studying these marine-terminating glaciers from the air and by ship. They found that of the 226 glaciers surveyed, 74 in deep fjords accounted for nearly half of the total ice loss (as previously monitored by satellites) from Greenland between 1992 and 2017. These glaciers exhibited the most undercutting, which is when a layer of warm, salty water at the bottom of a fjord melts the base of a glacier, causing the ice above to break apart. In contrast, the 51 glaciers that extend into shallow fjords or onto shallow ridges experienced the least undercutting and contributed only 15% of the total ice loss.
A consortium of climate scientists writing two years ago in Nature, a prestigious scientific journal, concluded that if Greenland continues to melt, in one bad-case scenario after another, tens of millions of people could be in danger of yearly flooding and displacement by 2030 – less than nine years from now. And by the end of this century, when Antarctica, which contains vastly more ice than Greenland, also enters a phase of catastrophic melting, the number of annual flood-prone people could reach nearly half a billion. It's more than farewell, Miami. It's goodbye, Florida.
Hi User:InformationToKnowledge thanks a lot for your massive improvements on this article! Awesome work. I came here because I was working on ice sheet where I am now going to add an excerpt of Greenland ice sheet (please take a look). Some comments / observations for this article in its current state:
EMsmile ( talk) 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Suggest some of the numbers be demoted to the body and a few sentences about “Description” and “Geophysical and biochemical role of Greenland's meltwater” added Chidgk1 ( talk) 20:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Amitchell125 ( talk · contribs) 18:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Happy to review this interesting article. However, its large size might mean that the review process takes longer than is recommended (a couple of weeks from start to finish). I'll start adding comments as soon as I can. AM
Greenland ice sheet | |
---|---|
Grønlands indlandsis Sermersuaq | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Type | Ice sheet |
Coordinates | 76°42′N 41°12′W / 76.7°N 41.2°W |
Area | 1,710,000 km2 (660,000 sq mi) |
Length | 2,400 km (1,500 mi) |
Width | 1,100 km (680 mi) |
Thickness | 1.67 km (1.0 mi) (average), ~3.5 km (2.2 mi) (maximum) |
There are no GA issues here, but most articles of this quality have full citations of a uniform standard. Some examples of issues:
More comments to follow. Regards, Amitchell125 ( talk) 08:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I have realised I need to quick fail the article.
Having started work on the sections, it has become apparent that the quality of the prose need a lot of attention. The comments below cover a couple of sections, after which I have stopped. The article needs to be copy edited throughout, and the text amended so that the article is more encyclopedic. The captions should not be so detailed that they cover material that is not included in the main text of the article, i.e. they need to be a lot shorter.
Further comments:
Hi
User:Amitchell125, I saw your comment in the GA review about section headings: The captions should not be so detailed that they cover material that is not included in the main text of the article, i.e. they need to be a lot shorter.
. I took a look but don't know which section headings you think should be shortened and how? None of them are overly long, given that they are not main level headings but sub-headings.
EMsmile (
talk)
19:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I responded to the request for a thorough copy edit (as part of the GOCE March drive), and have run through the whole article. A lot of work has gone into this article, and I was careful not to alter the sense of anything. I haven't added or removed any references (but someone might want to think about doing this another time). My copy editing focussed on clarity and readability: I shortened some sentences; removed quite a few 'however / notwithstanding' elements; tried to even out some of the over-bold statements, and to steer an easier path through some of the fact-rich sections. I tried to remove ambiguities where possible - but didn't always go back to the primary source to check statements of fact.
This is certainly a good quality article; my personal feeling is that in places there are still a few too many 'breaking news' sentences, highlighting a newly published study - but once these are a few years old, a reader might have a different perspective on the significance of the work (and might wish to de-emphasise, or tone down, the commentary).
Apologies if I have inadvertently mangled anything! Chaiten1 ( talk) 15:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Greenland ice sheet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Greenland ice sheet was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 29, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() |
|
Jens Nielsen 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"It was estimated that in the year 2007 Greenland ice sheet lost 592 km3 of its mass. [11]" Actually the source says that greenland MELT during the SUMMER that amount. It also gained mass by snowfalls etc. According to the source, net lost was only 65 km3. However, I guess that only counts the melt/snowfall, but not icebergs etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.199.26 ( talk) 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement "If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt away completely, the world's sea level would rise by more than 7 m (23 ft).[41]" is inaccurate. The article states the volume of the ice is "approximately 2,850,000 km3". The article entitled "Oceans" states that the surface area of the oceans of the planet is approximately "3.6×10(8) km2". Divide the volume by the area results in an increased depth of .77cm, not the 7m stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Really Just Al ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
2,850,000 cubic kilometres spread over 360,000,000 square kilometres gives a height of 7.92 metres. I'm guessing you did the calculation by dividing the two, then assumed a height of 1 metre rather than a kilometre. Easy mistake to make, but you really should check more carefully when criticising other people's arithmetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greylib ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This is somehow misleading, without taking into account the Post-glacial rebound. The melting of such a mass of ice will certainly been followed by isostatic ajustment, like currently in Scandinavia. universimmedia 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope I'm not just being anal, but isn't it incorrect to say "in mass" there, since km3 is a measure of volume?
I know scientists are very careful not to say anything about this, but what are the estimates of the time Greenland Ice Sheet takes to melt ? 1500 years (as in the end of the last ice age) - 150 years (as there's ~10 times less ice than in the last ice age)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.60.138 ( talk) 07:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
- Quick answer: We don't know. Between 50 and 1500 years.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.252.131 ( talk) 10:21, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Great example of scientific innumeracy from questioner and answerer. Time frame = amount of ice/loss rate = 3 million / 200 = 15,000 years roughly. Of course this calculation is not done in the article because the answer is not sufficiently alarming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 ( talk) 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Then add the tracking of accumulated changes by ponding causing accelerated change in the ice sheet in the earthquake record ....
Another dynamic of melting ice happens with such events as the Missoula Floods.-- Smkolins ( talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Because the overwhelming majority of humans in the world live near the water, it would inundated almost every major coastal city in the world, absent heroic mitigation." does not make sense. 1) IF TRUE? then regardless of the number of people living near water, it would still inundate (not -inundated) almost every major coastal city in the world. 2) also "absent heroic mitigation" does not reflect any fact, and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia. My suggestion is: 1) delete it altogether, or 2) change it to: "This would inundate most coastal cities in the world and remove several small island countries from the face of Earth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.210.234 ( talk • contribs)
It's worthy of note that the mass loss is due more to the ice flow in the outlet glaciers than to melting on the ice sheet (at least since 1996). [2] Should the section on melting be rewritten to reflect this? 71.32.19.55 ( talk) 01:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC) I do not see a mistake in the increased melting section, but you are correct and so I added a section on the mechanism and examples of glacier acceleration which demonstrate that it is a change at the calving front that is driving the acceleration not enhanced meltwater production. Peltoms ( talk) 16:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This news story...
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland23-2008aug23,0,750881.story
...claims Petermann Glacier has a huge crack, and is about to calve a mega-iceberg.
Could someone who knows anything about the situation Wikify Petermann Glacier, then, maybe, point to the crack on those satellite photos? They all look like a bunch of ice to us civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.171.42 ( talk) 20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Also der Wikipedia Artikel beruht auf Quellen des IPCC. Die Groesse des Eisschildes Greenlandes wird mit 1.700.000 Quadratkilometer angeben. Haben die beim IPCC einen Erdglobus? Bei dem koennen sie das Gradssytem der Nordhalbkugel sehr gut betrachten, dieses unterteilt die Nordhalbkugel in 90 Kreise. Davon umfasst der Nordpol mit 90 Grad und 360 Graden eine Flaeche von Null Quadratmetern. Und nun behaupten die Referenzquellen auf die Kreisflaechen zwischen dem 83 Grad und dem 63 Grad bzw. dem 20 bis 60 Grad (Hauptflaeche liegt zwischen dem 30 und 50 Grad) soll eine Flaeche von 1.700.000.000 Quadratmetern passen. Ohne das genau auszurechnen, schaetze ich mal, dass es als Mathematiker und Geograph unmoeglich ist, bei diesen Gradzahlen des Erdglobuses von Groenland eine Flaeche 1.700.000.000 Quadratmeter Eisschild unterzubringen, rein mathematisch (Kreisflaechenberechnung Kugelberechung) und geographisch unmoeglich ist (koennen sie auch mit einem Zirkel nachpruefen). Ich schaetze das Eisschild von Greenland hat auf Grund von Mathematischen und Geographischen Gegebenheiten eine moegliche Groesse von 170 Millionen bis 350 Millionen Quadratmetern. Das gleiche gilt wahrscheinlich auch genauso fuer das Antarktische Eisschild, dass im Greenland Eisschild Artikel Wikipedia erwaehnt wird (Link).
http://rapidshare.com/files/309919401/FOI2009.zip
Is Al Gore writing this article? The IPCC? Greenpeace? It is so blatantly biased that its global-warming fear mongering shouts out from every corner. Are we supposed to get objective data and facts or is this a cry to stop the alleged "global warming?" Can we stop reading about this "if all the ice of Greenland were to melt" warning at every opportunity (even when it is entirely out of context)? I am not even going to try to fix anything here, since it is painfully obvious that the global warming tzars will immediately undo any such edits. Deep Guy ( talk) 14:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The statement had been that "at this rate, it would melt in 11,900" years and had cited a 2001 report by IPCC. Since this report is not the msot recent, I had earlier today updated the sentence to "At this rate of ice loss the IPCC estimated in 2001 that Greenland ice sheet would melt in 11,900 years" However there are several additional problems:
For all these reasons and especially the third, I've removed this sentence. (The 2001 reference (currently ref [2] in the article) is still there and is cited in other parts of the article. For useful background on point 3. see [4] foremost; also [5]) Harel ( talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The Al Gore, and the other Climate Change is all America's fault forget to mention that millions of years ago when there was no connection between South America, and Central/North America. The Panama Gap was wide open for any ship or whale to pass from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there was no northern ice pack at all. The climate was very warm. I am unsure what prehistoric automobile company was to blame. The fact is the climate would change on earth regardless of what creature is at the top of the food chain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.200.121 ( talk) 21:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
why there is ice sheet on greenland while not near it in canada and not in similar places in siberia? i have found this: http://200.ksu.ru/index.php?sci_news=451 , http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/uob-wig082608.php . so, it is unknown by modern science. -- Qdinar ( talk) 06:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually neither article contains any significant discussion about the question "ice sheet on greenland while not near it in canada." Both articles are concerned with the question about what caused the drop in CO2 concentration and the formation of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the Late Pliocene. The Eureka Alert press release, "Why is Greenland covered in ice?" lacks any discussion of "why there is ice sheet on greenland while not near it in canada and not in similar places in siberia." It only discusses the idea that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide can "explain the transition from the mostly ice-free Greenland of three million years ago, to the ice-covered Greenland." Both press release and the August 28, 2008 Nature paper ("Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels" by Daniel J. Lunt, Gavin L. Foster, and others), which it discusses, neither mentions anything about Qdinar's question nor states anything about the location of the current Greenland Ice Sheet being a mystery. Thus, it is completely incorrect to claim that either the press release or the Nature paper can be used to support the "unknown by modern science" conclusion. In the Russian article, the reference to the question about why the ice sheet now covers Greenland and not Canada and Siberia is a single sentence that asks,
Clarify why Greenland is covered with ice, while the respective territories of Canada and Siberia in the summer is completely free of snow, it is, however, also can not be.
The Russian article completely lacks any significant discussion of why its author believes this is a mystery. As it is written, this sentence is only a personal opinion that lacks any scientific arguments to back it up and, as a result, fails the WP:RS criteria. Given the lack of any scientific justification for this opinion in this article, it is useless as any unsubstantiated and undocumented opinion about any matter is for Wikipedia purposes. Besides, the fact of the matter is that continental ice sheets once covered Canada and Europe nearest Greenland during the Last Glacial Maximum. They melted before Greenland did as climate warmed from the Last Glacial Maximum because of meteorological and oceanographic factors, of which the author of Russian article apparently lacks any knowledge, that are well-documented in the scientific literature. Paul H. ( talk) 14:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Some cursory searches didn't seem to find this in the article, so I'll note it here and more active participants can put it in the right place. One fun bit of trivia is that even when the glaciers covered most of Canada and the central United States they don't seem to have covered the northeast corner of Greenland (parts of the Northeast National Park). Rainfall and whatnot seem to have worked to keep the area a barren rocky desert regardless of how cold it got or how much ice ringed it. (Might bear some double checking, since is mid-20th century source; still, cool if true). — LlywelynII 13:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The section on surface melting only mentions data up to 2002. This needs to be updated with considerations of more recent events, notably, the period in mid-July 2012 where something like 97% of the surface area of the ice sheet experienced melting. EthicsEdinburgh ( talk) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If the temperature is projected to increase to where tipping points such as methane releases occur generating feedback loops where the melting occurs faster, and scientists already observe the rate of melting is showing surprising acceleration, won't the thousands of years presently projected for the ice caps to melt completely be reduced as substantially as the warming is increased? On other words, is it correct that if the rate of warming is doubled the time of melting would be halved, and if multiplied by a factor of ten the same? 12.187.94.154 ( talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
How can the planes from WW2 be buried under 80m of ice ? more than 1.7 m each year (47 years) against the model. I've read that the corpses of vikings were unburied there some years ago. How could it be named GREENland instead of Whiteland or Frostland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.138.162 ( talk) 04:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It is currently stated that the melting of the ice sheet would result in a 7.2 metre rise in sea level. However an article in Nature implies up to a 13 metre rise, to quote: "global mean sea level 6 to 13 metres above the present level around 410,000 to 400,000 years ago, implying substantial mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet". http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7506/full/nature13456.html Royalcourtier ( talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The ice sheet, consisting of layers of compressed snow from more than 100,000 years, contains in its ice today's most valuable record of past climates.
Claiming that it is the most valuable record is quite presumptive. What about the Antarctic ice cores that go back further in time are they not more valuable since they hold more information?
Haloway13 ( talk) 20:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The ice sheet, consisting of layers of compressed snow from more than 100,000 years, contains in its ice today's most valuable record of past climates.
Claiming that it is the most valuable record is quite presumptive. What about the Antarctic ice cores that go back further in time are they not more valuable since they hold more information?
Haloway13 ( talk) 20:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Greenland ice sheet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This article seems extremely lacking in information on the actual ice sheet itself, seemingly like a lot of others. Compare to Ross Ice Shelf for a more relevant article on a similar feature. Has anyone considered reworking this to be more about the ice sheet itself and less about climate change? 156.57.210.83 ( talk) 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I am looking for informations about the seasonal changing, but there are the datas for this topic? -- Fmrauch ( talk) 12:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Nonlinear rise in Greenland runoff in response to post-industrial Arctic warming Science News summary A new method for observationally determining past melt rates is developed and pre-industrial rates are compared to the present day. Rates are increasing and will continue to increase with further warming. From the abstract
The nonlinearity of melt response is key and it helps to address questions below about time to melt the ice sheet and so on. Ecwiebe ( talk) 17:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The article says "Indlandsis" is the Danish term for the ice cap, but in Danish, we actually say "Indlandsisen". The last -en is the definitive article. We use the definitive, because Indlandsisen only refers to the Greenland Ice Cap. 77.233.228.141 ( talk) 09:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Reworking this big article is a big project, but for anybody who wants to dig in, I found some good recent RS. [1] [2] [3] HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
References
From September 2019 to August 2020, the Greenland Ice Sheet experienced higher ice loss than the 1981-2010 average but substantially lower than the record 2018/19 loss. Glaciers and ice sheets outside of Greenland have continued a trend of significant ice loss, dominated largely by ice loss from Alaska and Arctic Canada.
For the past five years, scientists with the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission have been studying these marine-terminating glaciers from the air and by ship. They found that of the 226 glaciers surveyed, 74 in deep fjords accounted for nearly half of the total ice loss (as previously monitored by satellites) from Greenland between 1992 and 2017. These glaciers exhibited the most undercutting, which is when a layer of warm, salty water at the bottom of a fjord melts the base of a glacier, causing the ice above to break apart. In contrast, the 51 glaciers that extend into shallow fjords or onto shallow ridges experienced the least undercutting and contributed only 15% of the total ice loss.
A consortium of climate scientists writing two years ago in Nature, a prestigious scientific journal, concluded that if Greenland continues to melt, in one bad-case scenario after another, tens of millions of people could be in danger of yearly flooding and displacement by 2030 – less than nine years from now. And by the end of this century, when Antarctica, which contains vastly more ice than Greenland, also enters a phase of catastrophic melting, the number of annual flood-prone people could reach nearly half a billion. It's more than farewell, Miami. It's goodbye, Florida.
Hi User:InformationToKnowledge thanks a lot for your massive improvements on this article! Awesome work. I came here because I was working on ice sheet where I am now going to add an excerpt of Greenland ice sheet (please take a look). Some comments / observations for this article in its current state:
EMsmile ( talk) 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Suggest some of the numbers be demoted to the body and a few sentences about “Description” and “Geophysical and biochemical role of Greenland's meltwater” added Chidgk1 ( talk) 20:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Amitchell125 ( talk · contribs) 18:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Happy to review this interesting article. However, its large size might mean that the review process takes longer than is recommended (a couple of weeks from start to finish). I'll start adding comments as soon as I can. AM
Greenland ice sheet | |
---|---|
Grønlands indlandsis Sermersuaq | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Type | Ice sheet |
Coordinates | 76°42′N 41°12′W / 76.7°N 41.2°W |
Area | 1,710,000 km2 (660,000 sq mi) |
Length | 2,400 km (1,500 mi) |
Width | 1,100 km (680 mi) |
Thickness | 1.67 km (1.0 mi) (average), ~3.5 km (2.2 mi) (maximum) |
There are no GA issues here, but most articles of this quality have full citations of a uniform standard. Some examples of issues:
More comments to follow. Regards, Amitchell125 ( talk) 08:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I have realised I need to quick fail the article.
Having started work on the sections, it has become apparent that the quality of the prose need a lot of attention. The comments below cover a couple of sections, after which I have stopped. The article needs to be copy edited throughout, and the text amended so that the article is more encyclopedic. The captions should not be so detailed that they cover material that is not included in the main text of the article, i.e. they need to be a lot shorter.
Further comments:
Hi
User:Amitchell125, I saw your comment in the GA review about section headings: The captions should not be so detailed that they cover material that is not included in the main text of the article, i.e. they need to be a lot shorter.
. I took a look but don't know which section headings you think should be shortened and how? None of them are overly long, given that they are not main level headings but sub-headings.
EMsmile (
talk)
19:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I responded to the request for a thorough copy edit (as part of the GOCE March drive), and have run through the whole article. A lot of work has gone into this article, and I was careful not to alter the sense of anything. I haven't added or removed any references (but someone might want to think about doing this another time). My copy editing focussed on clarity and readability: I shortened some sentences; removed quite a few 'however / notwithstanding' elements; tried to even out some of the over-bold statements, and to steer an easier path through some of the fact-rich sections. I tried to remove ambiguities where possible - but didn't always go back to the primary source to check statements of fact.
This is certainly a good quality article; my personal feeling is that in places there are still a few too many 'breaking news' sentences, highlighting a newly published study - but once these are a few years old, a reader might have a different perspective on the significance of the work (and might wish to de-emphasise, or tone down, the commentary).
Apologies if I have inadvertently mangled anything! Chaiten1 ( talk) 15:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)