August 29, 2022
"Human-driven climate change has set in motion massive ice losses in Greenland that couldn’t be halted even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases today..."
"... according to a new study published Monday. The findings in Nature Climate Change project that it is now inevitable that 3.3 percent of the Greenland ice sheet will melt — equal to 110 trillion tons of ice.... While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise, the authors suggested much of it can play out between now and the year 2100.
"The point is, we need to plan for that ice as if it weren’t on the ice sheet in the near future, within a century or so,' said William Colgan, a study co-author...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215I will be interested to hear what Judith Curry says about this. I tend to trust her with an impartial look at things.
The IPCC reports have always looked at Greenland ice collapse as a very unlikely but very major event. Perhaps this is a contrary take, which considers it more likely, which would be very bad if it's true. Or perhaps 3% is not a "collapse", but is a smaller and more likely, somewhat less major event.
Best for all to wait on some more climate scientists, instead of freaking out in two opposite directions depending on your politics.
I will be interested to hear what Judith Curry says about this. I tend to trust her with an impartial look at things.
The IPCC reports have always looked at Greenland ice collapse as a very unlikely but very major event. Perhaps this is a contrary take, which considers it more likely, which would be very bad if it's true. Or perhaps 3% is not a "collapse", but is a smaller and more likely, somewhat less major event.
Best for all to wait on some more climate scientists, instead of freaking out in two opposite directions depending on your politics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1564576027350913024
Hmm.
Good it's over and you can leave me alone let me have cheap electricity generated with coal and car run on low cost easily available gasoline. A car that can be fully charged for a 400 mile trip in 5 minutes.
Mike Sylwester: until you can point to (and describe in some detail) all of the causes that make the global climate system work, you can’t begin to tell us which of them is “catalytic” or headed for “chaos “. You’re just hand-waving. Same with your claim that things are changing at an “abnormal” rate. What is the “normal” rate and how do we know that: the system doesn’t present itself to us neatly labeled with arrows to show which thing makes other things go, and in what range or at what rate do we can call it “normal” (and begin scaring one another with predictions that it is going to become “abnormal” and —ooh!— “chaotic.”*
This is basic science. Show your work, especially the math. Thanks.
* BTW what is so scary about “chaotic”? Weather IS chaotic. Lorenz made his bones about five decades ago characterizing them (the butterfly’s wing etc) and inaugurating a whole new branch of science. (James Gleick, “Chaos: The Making Of A New Science”).
Nearly a whole entire foot?!
But they aren’t all that sure how long it will take, and “suggest much of it can play out” before 2100?!
That’s a lot of weasel words for a small projected increase over 3 generations of people. Maybe we’ll have time to do something about it, if necessary, and if it happens at all.
That’s one inch every 6 years, give or take. Who is silly enough to believe those kinds of changes are not happening all the time? Or could?
It’s baseless fear-mongering of the worst kind, playing on people’s irrational fear of things they cannot control.
I will believe such predictions when: (1) the author makes his basic, unaltered data available to all, (2} the author describes each step of data alteration and why, (3) the study is peer reviewed by a scientist who does not belong to the human-caused climate crisis church, (4) the author describes in detail alternative interpretations, (5) the author describes the limits of such future predictions and the factors that could cause his prediction to not be true, (6) the author describes the reasons that previous predictions have proven untrue, and (7) the author presents and defends his study in at least a dozen scientific venues that include climate skeptics.
Until then, based on the track record of climate alarmists, I will place no value on his research.
Owen at 7:45 AM
until you can point to (and describe in some detail) all of the causes that make the global climate system work, you can’t begin to tell us which of them is “catalytic” or headed for “chaos “.
What you say is true.
* I cannot point to all of the causes that make the global system work.
* I cannot begin to tell us which of them is "catalytic" or headed for "chaos"
I never have pretended that I can do either.
Wow, over 200 comments. It's been a while since I've seen that.
Should I go back and catch up?
Freder: "Insurance doesn't cover flood damage. That is covered by Federal Flood Insurance...."
When is insurance not insurance, Freder?
Just so you can eliminate this particular ignorance from your storehouse: More than ten years ago I was negotiating to purchase a house on the Rogue River in Oregon. The deal fell through because FISA changed the boundaries on the flood zone requiring a payment to them of $4000 annually to cover ... you guessed it, flood insurance.
"Best for all to wait on some more climate scientists, instead of freaking out in two opposite directions depending on your politics."
Since the vast majority of climate "scientists" are funded by government grants rooted in the expectation that they will find what the government wants (global crisis which can only and ever be prevented by fascism), I would suggest we have more than enough of them already. The best way out of this ongoing argument would be to stop government funding of climate "science" and let those activists find honest employment in the private sector.
All caught up.
I'm old enough to remember bald old Siniard of the Geography faculty telling us about the wretched decision-making on the part of the Feds when it came to Flood Plain restrictions.
He showed us maps of the county where the suburbs were exploding, and it was almost all in
low ground prone to predictable flooding.
I always kept that in mind in my few years in real estate, and in my own house searches.
“ I never have pretended that I can do either.”
So it’s “trust them and hate anybody who don’t.”
Sorry, I am no climate scientist but I have studied enough math and science to recognize hand waving when I see it
Lie #1 - Human driven climate change. Humans don't control the weather, let alone the climate. CO2 contributes about 5% to 10% of the greenhouse effect (about 3C). The current level of CO2 absorbs 87% of the available long-wave radiation. Doubling CO2 might increase the CO2 greenhouse effect to 3.5C. Whoopie doo! A whole half a degree C!
Lie #2 - The Greenland glaciers are melting. They are gaining mass, not losing it. The summer months are when the glaciers decrease. This summer has seen far less melting than normal. The year-long mass gain has been positive since the low year of 2012.
Lie #3 - It's a WaPoo story. The WaPoo is presumed to be lying unless proven otherwise.
Insane the the global warming folks think that climate has ever been static. Idiots show their idiocy. Was reading a day or so the Greenland ice sheet increased the most in one day on record. That little piece of ice calving off wasn’t being replenished by the underlying glacier. Get over it alarmists. Your theories have been wrong every step of the way.
This was supposed to be a most active hurricane season this year. Nope. Least active in 30. What say you? Overactive or under-active. Let me guess, your mania says both. Climate is not now and has never been static.
Hey, by the by, you know from actual climate scientists we are overdue for another ice age, right?
Dumb panic.
Post a Comment