२९ ऑगस्ट, २०२२
"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...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१५ टिप्पण्या:
215 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The walls are closing in.
Maybe it's not human-driven. That would also account for human-driven not mattering.
Did we say the year 2000? No, we meant 2100.
A hundred more years of scare tactics and fundraising !
Whew, good thing I didn’t buy a beach house. If it is inevitable, then might as well live comfortably in a safe zone. Otherwise, we may end up fighting unnecessary wars for oil and natural gas.
’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.’
Can? Afraid of ‘will’, apparently! Otherwise, the excerpt sounds really science-y!!
Well, that's another nice computer-modeled hypothesis. Wake me up when we have some data.
I'll be glad when those mobile goalposts are under water finally.
Serious question I have posed for years without a satisfactory answer; if icebergs and ice sheets are indeed melting, and since freezing water expands its mass by about 9%, wouldn't that LOWER global sea levels by some percentage?
It is critical that Greenlanders shut down their factories and stop building fires on the ice.
Seriously, how long can Americans believe that they are producing enough carbon dioxide to change the climate? I will believe our climate is changing -- it has been for millions of years, as geological evidence testifies. But please, stop with all the lectures about trading your Toyota in for a Tesla. Especially as long as electricity for the Tesla is being generated by fossil fuels. If the oceans are really going to rise, why is coastal real estate still valuable? Especially to the rich?
Google images of Greenland ice sheet dust. Albedo enhanced by microbiology is the first order melting factor. It's a feedback from the wildfires and industrial pollution. Like the Alps where most of the melting was caused by the precipitation of coal smoke.
3.3%? It seems to me that if you think the climate is so stable, with or without humans, that you don't expect a 3% change of anything over a century, well, you're just not very smart.
In 2008 Al Gore said the polar ice cap would be gone in 5 years:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/16/ten-years-ago-algore-predicted-the-north-polar-ice-cap-would-be-gone-inconveniently-its-still-there/
Before that Al Gore said "We have 10 years before its too late." We also had UN/global promises dating back to the 1990s. But I love my phone. I love flying to Europe. I MUST fly to the Caribbean every winter to get away from the cold. Errr, China and India get a pass because they were slower to industrialize than the rest of us.
I guess we all bought too much junk and drove/flew too much so it's too late. Goodbye cruel world.
Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Or the goalposts move.
On the day Greta and her fellow cultists hop a sailing ship (no air travel...) to Beijing to shame Xi Jinping I'll start caring.
I won't be around, but apparently Jared will be.
WOLF!!!
I've thought since about 1990 that IF Anthropogenic Global Climate Change was a thing, and was happening, then it was already too late to do anything about it.
The various "green" alternatives not only aren't reliable (with the partial exception of nukes), they would not counteract processes that took decades or more to have an effect.
IIRC the first result of a big melt in Greenland would be to shut down or disrupt the Great North Atlantic Conveyer in the deep, and the Gulf Stream on top. (Also IIRC, the scientific record of climate shows some very abrupt shifts--a few decades sometimes, or even less.)
"... suggested ... much of it ... can ... "
This calls for the classical response: "And monkeys might fly out of my butt."
This is a timely propaganda piece to counter the restlessness of the man on the street about energy and petroleum policy.
Gender studies majors and anthropology degree holders will believe it and vow not to reproduce. And speculators will move in as beachfront properties go on sale in the Hamptons. Rob Reiner will let his Malibu house go for a song.
Wheeling out the fear a bit early in this election cycle, aren't they?
Oh look, yet another meaningless prediction meant to stoke fear and panic to drive policies that won't solve the alleged problem.
PBS has broadcast many informative documentaries about climate change -- which is humanity's major concern.
One problem with President Trump was that when the issue was raised in his debates with Biden, he babbled something about burning the undergrowth in California forests. He essentially revealed that he is ignorant about the climate issue.
For that one reason, a significant portion of the public hates him and never would vote for him.
Without question we are suffering from Human-driven climate change articles.
Why is Greenland called Greenland? Why, because at one point, aroun 1100 or so, it was in fact much greener than it is today. The Vikings settled the place and held on for hundreds of years... until they died off as their green fields got buried under ice and snow.
The world did not end during the Medieval warm period. It was warmer then than today, I believe. Hence "Vine" street in London, and other places talking about crops that could be grown back then and not now.
I guess all the Romans driving evil SUV's must have raised the temperature.
By the way... what brought an end to the Medieval warm period? And why wouldn't such a mechanism kick in to start cooling us off again? And are we not still in an Ice Age, just in between periods of ice advancing? How does that kick in and why won't it?
Why it's called Greenland remains a mystery!
If true, then Biden needs to order the Air Force to bomb every single coal fired power plant in China, including the ones under construction.
The fate of the planet is at stake!
So, another day ending in "y"?
this will Definitely Happen
this will Definitely Happen in a hundred years
this will Definitely Happen in a hundred years or so
this might very well Happen at some point in the future
this is something that NOTHING that people do can will stop
this is only going to be a foot
I'll take the under.
I recall the math if ALL of Greenland's ice were to melt: 7.6 meters of sea level rise (a few assumptions of areas and average depth of ice, but commonly used figures). This was the 'scare tactic' used by the global warmistas demonstrating how bad it's going to be. I think the number they used was nearer 10 meters.
3.3% equals a quarter of a meter, or about 10 inches. Is that something to be worried about? It's not as if you wake up one morning and there it is. Even if it's half as bad as they say it *could* be, that's around 5" of world wide sea level rise. (all things being equal). Over 70 years.
Think I can get one of Obama's beach houses at a discount now?
Maybe Pelosi wants to sell her new Florida beach house cheap?
Yeah didn't think so.
They know this is bullshit written to keep stupid democrat voters scared and under control.
Holy f'g shit! What are we gonna do?
Last time I looked, August was still summer, even in Greenland. I'm sure that has no impact on the weather.
I think we are going to have to have a conference in Davos where all the attendees fly in on private jets to discuss this "bombshell" report.
Stupid leftist will have to pray to the shrine of Al Gore, who also has a fair amount of beach front property for some reason.
freeze and eat bugs, because we said so, now mind you it's not day after tomorrow, where you flood and freeze the same day,
That’s why it’s called Greenland and not Iceland
Trollinator1000 said...
Serious question I have posed for years without a satisfactory answer; if icebergs and ice sheets are indeed melting, and since freezing water expands its mass by about 9%, wouldn't that LOWER global sea levels by some percentage?
Stop with that thinking bullshit.
Pray to the climate gods for absolution. You are committing sin.
I'm seeing a lot of "if this is true" in this. When did speculation become science.
BTW, there is a CO2 shortage in the US right now. Beer, dry ice and soda production is being impacted. Will America's fizzy drinks go flat?
Just so happens, yesterday I was watching this update of a 2015 interview with a real scientist, Freeman Dyson. He's not so convinced that we know enough to be so panicked or even worried. If we really wanted to reduce global warming the call would be to reduce the humidity and clouds, but then that would be a hard sell since humidity is something people can feel.
https://youtu.be/BQHhDxRuTkI
As Bjørn Lomborg said, adjust.
Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
This is the first year in many where we are not going to have a Tropical storm in August.
Strangely this wont be in the news.
I wonder why.
I didn't need my math degrees to conclude I've kind of had it with scientific projections about anything. They've become political science first and foremost.
I thought Greenland was so named in a brazen act of false advertising to encourage settlers. A foot of sea level rise might not matter, except since 1500 coastal areas have been developed in ways that will result in huge economic damage and social dislocation. Dutch engineers to the rescue?
JWT-BBT
James Webb Telescope/Big Bang Theory
The science is never settled.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
If you've been a "we must act now" climate activist for more then 4 years and you didn't study engineering, Physics, economics in those 4 years so you can contribute to the solution, well, I don't think you know what "existential threat" means.
A dead white man understood that in crisis, you study what will help solve the problem, not "your passion".
"I could fill Volumes with Descriptions of Temples and Palaces, Paintings, Sculptures, Tapestry, Porcelaine, &c. &c. &c. — if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty. The Science of Government it is my Duty to study, more than all other Sciences: the Art of Legislation and Administration and Negotiation, ought to take Place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other Arts. I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine."--John Adams
JWT-BBT
James Webb Telescope/Big Bang Theory
The science is never settled.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Was there any reports of drowned lands when "Greenland" got his name at the start of the medieval warming period and during the warming period itself? I'm Flemish, of the 'Low' Countries and I sure would have remembered from history classes that Flanders was underwater during the Middle Ages.
OH MY GOD!!! AHHHHHH!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE....AGAIN!!!!
JWT-BBT
James Webb Telescope/Big Bang Theory
The science is never settled.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
JWT-BBT
James Webb Telescope/Big Bang Theory
The science is never settled.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Serious question I have posed for years without a satisfactory answer; if icebergs and ice sheets are indeed melting, and since freezing water expands its mass by about 9%, wouldn't that LOWER global sea levels by some percentage??
Icebergs are in the water but Greenland's ice sheet is mainly sitting on top of Greenland. So most of its ice doesn't affect sea level, until it melts. Also as an fyi, when water freezes it doesn't increase its mass, but its volume. It just takes up more space.
(The term I use for this general topic is Global Warming Hysteria).
3.3% equals a quarter of a meter, or about 10 inches. Is that something to be worried about?
Well, yes it does if you live in Miami, New Orleans, Houston, or lower Manhattan (and it is even worse for the chemical plants and oil refineries on the Mississippi downstream of New Orleans or on the Houston Ship Canal).
But of course, 3.3% in Greenland means that there will be equivalent melting all across the Arctic.
If the oceans are really going to rise, why is coastal real estate still valuable? Especially to the rich?
So, just because you are rich, that gives you some greater insight and intelligence?
I am in the Alps. The glaciers are retreating. Until 1850, they were advancing. And then the Little Ice Age ended. We can all wonder why, but at home in Chicago, I look at Lake Michigan every day. That is what is left of part of the ice sheet. Only 20,000 years ago, there was ice a mile thick where Chicago is now. The last 1,000 years have been the coolest millennium in the past 10,000 years. We all are going to like warm weather better than cold weather.
I hope the cold weather stays away for a while—-for the children.
I'm so old I can remember when Greenpeace was claiming that the entire Greenland ice sheet would be melted by 2030.
But more seriously: "We can't alter its course but it's definitely man-made" is a pretty weak claim.
"Serious question I have posed for years without a satisfactory answer; if icebergs and ice sheets are indeed melting, and since freezing water expands its mass by about 9%, wouldn't that LOWER global sea levels by some percentage?"
Serious answer. The melting of ice sheets on the ocean won't change the ocean levels at all. You can prove this by watching a glass of ice water melt. Ice on the land, though, is different- it adds to the mass of water, and thus volume, in the ocean if it melts. However, the issue more complicated than that since large ice masses pushes the covered land masses down, and the melting of of such sheets allow the land masses to rise back up. The North American continent is still rebounding from the Laurentide ice sheet that covered all of Canada and parts of the northern US during the last glaciation period.
JWT-BBT
James Webb Telescope/Big Bang Theory
The science is never settled.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
I don't care at all.
I would be thrilled to see Obama's houses under water, but that won't happen because this is alarmist bullshit.
Don't believe me? Ask Paul Ehrlich...
Trollinator1000 said...
"Serious question I have posed for years without a satisfactory answer; if icebergs and ice sheets are indeed melting, and since freezing water expands its mass by about 9%"..
Freezing water doesn't change its mass. Volume changes and that's why it floats (ice is less dense than liquid water). Applies to bergs. Doesn't raise the water level by melting, if it was originally floating.
Sheets n/a (sheet melts - runs downhill - raises the level of whatever body of water it lands in).
I'm sure none of this ice was melting before Trump offered to buy Greenland.
In preparation for Trump's second term, this ice is just moving to Canada.
Blogger Enigma said...
In 2008 Al Gore said the polar ice cap would be gone in 5 years:
He also said it in his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance" That is, that the arctic ice would be gone by 1998,
If you want to look it up, make sure you find an original edition of the book. I have (or had, haven't seen it for a bit) a paperback copy purchased in 1992.
Apparently there was some stealth editing that went on. In 2005 or so, the book, still claiming to be published in 1992, no revisions or reprints, had disappeared this and it was supposed to be gone in 2013.
And it is still there, undiminished in size.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
"This is the first year in many where we are not going to have a Tropical storm in August."
How much more evidence do you need that climate change is real? And it's spectacular. /s
There's reason for hope. As Achilles notes, we have made it through the summer without a hurricane. Biden's Climate Change measures are starting to take effect. There's no way we could have made it through a hurricane free summer with Trump in the White House. The adults are now in charge of the thermostat. Biden might have made a few mistakes in the Afghan withdrawal, but you can trust him to adjust the thermostat
Mike S.
Indeed. The left hate Trump and Trump is to blame for climate change. He alone.
The accuracy of this report will be checked only by non-mainstream media outlets who will have to quote people known by the same mainstream media as 'climate deniers' because they use facts to question the accuracy of the reports.
In the meantime, a clip of reality about to hit Europe today, and worse in the near coming months. This is not hyperbole about what might happen in 2100. This is happening. Now. Today. And come January.
Enjoy discussing the coming rising seas via candlelight, while sitting in the dark and cold, taking cold showers, wishing you had a computer charge around somewhere, or a car that could run, or a roll of toilet paper. Toilet paper you say? What?
Germany and Europe staring at cold winter.
And they mock Trump.
The conclusion is that we need to plan. Okay, so cut the angst and plan. Let's bar insurance for structures below a certain contour level above sea level. Over time that would result in a lower financial hit on the off chance sea levels actually rise materially. And in the short term, it will let the clerisy pushing this claptrap share in the pain.
Trollinator1000 said...Serious question I have posed for years without a satisfactory answer; if icebergs and ice sheets are indeed melting, and since freezing water expands its mass by about 9%, wouldn't that LOWER global sea levels by some percentage?
Melting icebergs will have no effect on sea levels--that 9% is roughly the amount that is sticking out of the water. If it melts, no change. Ice sheets are new water entering the oceans, thus raising the sea level.
That said, this "study" is an exercise in clairvoyance. It's conclusions are based entirely on their assumptions about greenhouse gases and future behavior of the climate system. Their conclusions are correctly only to the extent their assumptions are correct. We do not currently have sufficient information to conclude that their assumptions are correct.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
Atmospheric CO2 is only @400ppm.
N2 is @780,000PPM. It is a serious problem but only the Dutch are taking it seriously.
We must start working to reduce atmospheric N2 NOW!!!
If we don't we are all going to die!!!
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Trollinator1000 said...
if icebergs and ice sheets are indeed melting, and since freezing water expands its mass by about 9%, wouldn't that LOWER global sea levels by some percentage?
IF they were floating, it wouldn't raise or lower it one bit (because ice sticks out of the water while floating).. BUT; the Greenland ice is sitting on rock (they are glaciers not ice sheets. When/IF it melts, the meltwater would go down into the ocean
Vance: Why is Greenland called Greenland?
Your explanation is not accurate. It was called "Greenland" as a marketing ploy to attract settlers. Greenland has always been a harder place to live than Iceland, with only a few isolated regions of Greenland being inhabitable during the Medieval Warm Period. Once that ended, the colonies there were cutoff and eventually died off. If Greenland had been a nicer place, most likely the Vikings would have made a greater effort to colonize "Vinland" since they could get supplies. The reality is they had to be supplied from Iceland which had to be supplied from Norway, making it quite difficult.
What is interesting is if Greenland were to melt, there would be a large lake in the middle of it. I'm not sure it would technically be a lake or a large sea.
Note: We are all gonna die anyway, none of us will get out of here alive.
But I am hoping to stir up some angst about N2 and figure out how to make money on it.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Note: We are all gonna die anyway, none of us will get out of here alive.
But I am hoping to stir up some angst about N2 and figure out how to make money on it.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Leif Ericsson named it Greenland as a PR move intended to encourage migration. The first real estate fraud in history (or that I know of anyway). They called it Iceland for the opposite reason. Go figure.
"While the study did not specify a time frame..."
...the NYT maintains the earth is "already set to" lose a great chunk of its mass.
There. NYT fixed it for them.
Dave Begley said...
If true, then Biden needs to order the Air Force to bomb every single coal fired power plant in China, including the ones under construction.
The fate of the planet is at stake!
ABSOLUTELY! if this is the existential problem they claim.. Nuclear WAR* would be well worth it
I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But we (apparently) are looking at two regrettable, but none the less Distinct possible futures..
One, where you've got a Billion people killed and Another; where you've got EIGHT Billion killed.
Of course, in reality; they're not Even in favor of Nuclear Energy, let alone Nuclear War
Nuclear WAR* nothing stops global warming, like a nuclear winter!
Blogger JK Brown said...
BTW, there is a CO2 shortage in the US right now. Beer, dry ice and soda production is being impacted. Will America's fizzy drinks go flat?
Bacardi has their main distillery here in Puerto Rico. They make that nasty Cuban style rum even though they call it Puerto Rican rum.
They have huge, 10-20,000 or so gallon, fermentation vats. the fermenting mash gives off a lot of CO2. The vats used to be open top and the CO@ just went off to the atmosphere.
Some engineer in the early 80s realized that the CO2 was a resource worth money rather than a wasted to be discarded. They capped the vats and began capturing the CO2, selling it to Coca-Cola bottler which they owned at the time.
Henry Ford was absolutely fanatic about converting waste to resources in the teens and 20s. Lots of detailed info in his books.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Blogger JK Brown said...
BTW, there is a CO2 shortage in the US right now. Beer, dry ice and soda production is being impacted. Will America's fizzy drinks go flat?
Bacardi has their main distillery here in Puerto Rico. They make that nasty Cuban style rum even though they call it Puerto Rican rum.
They have huge, 10-20,000 or so gallon, fermentation vats. the fermenting mash gives off a lot of CO2. The vats used to be open top and the CO@ just went off to the atmosphere.
Some engineer in the early 80s realized that the CO2 was a resource worth money rather than a wasted to be discarded. They capped the vats and began capturing the CO2, selling it to Coca-Cola bottler which they owned at the time.
Henry Ford was absolutely fanatic about converting waste to resources in the teens and 20s. Lots of detailed info in his books.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
AS some Alaskan glaciers recede, they're uncovering vast numbers of trees were once there. So the glaciers there, and in Greenland, haven't always been there, and it will be far from a disaster if they're not there again.
Now, will teh water in those masses all go into the oceans and make the seas rise? Not bloody likely. If it hets warmer, the air will start carrying more moisture. Rin will start falling in areas that haven't seen it. That freed up water will be distributed throughout the world in unexpected and as yet unknown places. And there' no global warming models that can predict how.
NMObjectivist said...As Bjørn Lomborg said, adjust.
Even if the study conclusions turn out to be true, an inch or so a decade is hardly a crisis.
No storms no news? How come I read about it?
Trollinator1000 said..."Serious question I have posed for years without a satisfactory answer; if icebergs and ice sheets are indeed melting, and since freezing water expands its mass by about 9%, wouldn't that LOWER global sea levels by some percentage?"
I think the answer is the difference between land-bound vs floating ice.
Must be a slow news day, time to dredge something scary out of the Panic Porn drawer (Climate/Ice Sheet/Greenland).
Seriously: I put this right next to the alarming news that in less than 5 billion years the Sun will become a red giant and devour the planets.
My biggest fear regarding global climate is that Sol doesn't heat back up, we start a cooldown, and those with a vested interest in "global warming" are too blind to see that we need to work on a way to increase global temperatures to fend off the next ice age.
"’While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise."
That's how you know it's bullshit.
This is an ongoing sop to the climate cultists and the left. Which is redundant.
Which brings me to mind. How much do our wandering magnetic poles effect our weather?
In 952 Eric the Red established colony in Greenland. This was during the Medieval Warm Period that was, of course, caused by methane from walrus farts. The settlements were in existence until the Warming Period ended about 1350 AD. There was no one available at the time to clasp their hands in worry over it being too warm in Greenland and what that might do to the ice cap. (How fortunate for the Vikings!)
I do not doubt that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age ended in 1860 or so. Nor do I doubt that co2 has some affect on what is going on. However I refuse to advocate freezing in the dark in order to offset any possible temperature change.
As an aside, there is a short piece in the Harvard Alumni mag that describes how the current push for EVs is doing nothing for "climate change". The author's point is: we are subsidizing the rich to buy EVs, the manufacture of EVs generates more co2 than a gas auto, the rich use the EV as a second car and do not put enough mileage on the cars to offset the co2 produced in manufacture( range couldn't be an issue could it?), they then sell them to people who get no subsidy, but tend to drive the enough to finally offset the co2 from manufacture and thus have a positive effect on the environment. Who would have thunk that the politicians would get it backwards?!?
Re: Trollinator. It does not work that way. Floating ice caps and icebergs displace the exact same amount if they are frozen or melted. The icebergs and ice caps have the extra 9 percent above the water already, in other words, they displace the same amount of surface water. When frozen, 9 percent of that mass is above the water. The Greenland ice cap melting we have seen is the only actual melting we have seen so far affecting sea level, as the Antarctic ice cap is growing, not shrinking.
Wow! Not a single word of truth in the whole propaganda release. Quite good technique. Half truths never work for long. That takes a real professional to maintain these 100% fake reports. The World Government hires the best and the brightest.
Meanwhile, the schools in Detroit continue to suffer from lack of resources. Perhaps we should focus on how much of an improvement we can actually make with our trillions of expenditure and burdening. You know, actually make a difference in someone's life right now.
So, it's already too late to do anything about it. Okay, Karen, then STFU and leave us alone to drown in peace.
This sort of thing would be more impactful if they were not wrong so often. The Great Barrier Reef is dying... oh, wait, it is now stronger than ever...
Trump was saying that failure to apply sound forest management was making wildfires worse. It's a bit undercut by the fact that the federal government owns most of California's forest land, but it doesn't seem like an illogical or nonsensical view. One forest fire generates more pollution than millions of cars. Dead trees fuel forest fires and release CO² into the atmosphere even without fires.
It's not the whole answer to climate problems, but it's not an irrelevant or unfair point. Trump was awful in the debate, but taking Biden's talking about stopping oil drilling and surging refugees to the border into account, Trump's comments don't look objectionable. To me at least, the combination of all the panic and the severe measures undertaken here with the refusal of China and India to take carbon reduction measures gives the whole discussion an bizarre, surreal feeling.
serious question:
IF we can't Stop it, shouldn't we quit worrying about stopping it, and worry about Coping with it?
i mean; IF it's Real, AND we Can't stop it.. What's the point? Sounds like we should be building dikes
Greenland was never green, at least not in recorded history. It was so named by Olaf the Green, little known younger brother of the Viking known as Eric the Red.
Or something like that.
As long as the grants keep coming, this bullshit will be pushed by those who are benefiting.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
HL Mencken
Keith Richards says he has plenty of time, Beatitudes of the modern century from DC instead of MT of Olives. "The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest will leave for space" Rounding into 80 I'll probably miss first ships!
"even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases today"
Since reducing emissions is pointless, let's not waste money on it and focus on mitigation instead.
So, they confirmed that what has been happening for thousands of years will keep happening? Only 3.3%? By 2100? Gone by 2400?
Regardless, the snow and ice will remain at the poles, meaning we're still in a climactic ice age. Inter-glacial they call it.
"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“
That’s a good idea. I’ll see if I can invest some of my IRA in Greenland agriculture.
Trollinator 1000: The major ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are on land. If they melt all of the meltwater will be added to the oceans.
The problem with this journal is that it's completely one-sided. There can be no debate about the root causes of the warming climate. It's really shameful and unscientific to promote dogma as science.
Here is a great place to discover some real scientific debate about the climate:
https://judithcurry.com/
If we can all stay 6 feet apart for 14 days, COVID will be over.
Anthropogenic forced ice losses in a naturally recurring phenomenon a la ozone "hole".
Two problems. One, CO2 outside of a measured radiative [greenhouse] effect in the laboratory, has a near net-zero effect on the thermal [greenhouse] effect in the wild. Two, attribution is inferred, then modeled in a low resolution environment. Perhaps the problem is undetected, unmapped subterranean thermal sources a la Antarctica, which are first-order forcings of impulse events: blocking, phase shifts, or progressives processes: subsidence, that are observed then recorded out of context creating anthropogenic biases that lead to mischaracterizations at best, and wrong conclusions at worst.
"Last time I looked, August was still summer, even in Greenland. I'm sure that has no impact on the weather."
Summer is Global Warming.
Three inches of snow in April (I'm in SW Washington, mind you) is Climate Change.
These clowns stopped trying long ago.
What is the perfect temperature of the Earth?
When did it occur?
How will we know if we 'defeated' climate change?
LOL these idiots and their projections! Is Miami under water yet? Did the Great Barrier Reef die on schedule as promised? Is NYC the new Venice of the West? Did anything in ALgores movie ever come to pass? Beuhler? Anyone?
IF this is true it would signal a return to normal, not a catastrophe. After all, Greenland was named long ago when the land was covered with grass not ice. Change!
’While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise."
That's how you know it's bullshit.
This.
"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...."
If Mr. Colgan and his co-authors were real believers, they would be calling for an all-out effort to build safe, clean, reliable nuclear power plants.
Waiting ...
Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker at 11:55 AM
The left hate Trump and Trump is to blame for climate change. He alone.
I did not write that "Trump is to blame for climate change".
Rather, I wrote that, "He essentially revealed that he is ignorant about the climate issue."
When the subject arose in his debate with Biden, Trump babbled something about the undergrowth in California forests. He said that if that undergrowth is not cleared away, the the danger of forest fires increases.
Trump does not seem to be able to discuss the climate-change issue intelligently. I say this as someone who voted for him twice and would vote for him yet again.
I am not aware that anybody anywhere ever has blamed Trump alone for climate change.
How quickly we forget about January's Tonga volcano eruption.
"But of course, 3.3% in Greenland means that there will be equivalent melting all across the Arctic."
FWIW, that doesn't raise sea level one mm.
Meanwhile, the schools in Detroit continue to suffer from lack of resources.
Similarly, while Camp Lejune receives singular attention, Flint's families are left by the wayside. There was similar affirmative action with planned parent/hood in Michigan, New York, etc.
Remember the 90s meme? The rainforest being cut down. Ben and Jerrys even had an ice cream flavor tailored after it. Rainforest Crunch. Nobody talks much about those trees these days.
Funny that.
Lurker21 at 12:33 PM
Trump was saying that failure to apply sound forest management was making wildfires worse. ... One forest fire generates more pollution than millions of cars. Dead trees fuel forest fires and release CO² into the atmosphere even without fires. ... It's not the whole answer to climate problems, but it's not an irrelevant or unfair point. ...
It was his only point -- and it was a trivial point.
Sure, forest management of underbrush in California forests might be foolish. However, the debate topic was climate change, which is (I think) humanity's most important concern.
He was the US President, and he should have been able to discuss the climate-change issue much more intelligently. He appears to be ignorant about the issue.
One would be hard-pressed to identify any significant time period within the Earth's 4½-billion-year history when the climate wasn't actively changing. But we have all become conditioned as 21st century humans to read 'Climate Change!~' and interpret it as an existential threat whenever the next article is published, clamoring for our attention and exhorting us to action.
How many seaside cities in the world have significant acreage that is comprised of re-claimed land, I wonder. What??? Sea Level is rising and you're making more land at the same time????" What is the average acreage per city - I wonder?
This is not the first time I have read about Greenland-is-melting-and-we're-all-doomed. This is the stuff of pulp magazines. And incidentally, our Carbon Dioxide levels are near historic lows. Yes that's right - near the low end of the recorded historic range (~400 - 8,000 ppm)! Please let us know when the grownups start committing to open scientific-based debates using facts and the scientific method.
Re: Trollinator. The Greenland ice is on land. When the ice melts it runs into the ocean. Understand?
The same expert ilk promised us the world has come to peak oil at least four times in my lifetime, I'm 70.
In the fall of 1970 my cellular biology prof stated that by 1985 the world would be in an ice age. Always take with a grain of salt things said by a prof wearing Earth Shoes or Birkenstocks.
If only there was one source that determined the temps of Earth.
The grifters always need a pending disaster to grift. Meanwhile the World Economic Form is openly discussing putting chips in children. Not surprising the head of the WEF family were good nazis during WWII.
Always coming, like the second coming, like the successful socialist revolution.
I think 'has set in motion' assumes a linear system. Not so.
It seems to me the height of arrogance to believe that there are people that understand the complex climate interrelationships so well as to be able to claim these forecasts as accurate. There have been models produced for at least the last 20 years. I know of none that have proven out in actual experience. If they had proven to be accurate, we wouldn't hear so much about "potential" impacts. (I'll stipulate that we should reduce our dependance on fossil fuels and that renewables have some value, but better nuclear options should be a primary goal.)
This needs a BS tag, as most climate stories do. We know so little about long term climate. We’ve spent billions on windmills and solar whereas an investment of, say $250 million, in basic science might of carried us a long way.
My epiphany came when I visited Thermopolis Wyoming and the fabulous dinosaur center there. It’s world class and even includes the opportunity to go into the field and help excavate dinosaurs. We worked on a 35’ Camarasaurus, a huge herbivore. We were told that central Wyoming was a tropical jungle when dinosaurs roamed. Fast forward to the winter of 1805/1806 when Lewis and Clark passed through the area. The temperatures fell to 20 below and the area was a treeless plain, as it is today. But, who changed the climate? No one was driving big Ford SUVs around or burning coal to produce electricity…..all the bogeymen of the environmentalists. Yet the climate changed! Does this mean man has no role….no. What it means is we don’t know what caused the climate change and that there’s a lot more to this than we know. It’s too late now to take that deep breath and do some basic research but a rational view going forward would be wise.
Al Gore has a house on the coast. $9 million.
Al is the original 'global warming' guy! He is voting with his wallet and his wallet says the whole climate change thing is a sham.
Al Gore has a house on the coast. $9 million.
Al is the original 'global warming' guy! He is voting with his wallet and his wallet says the whole climate change thing is a sham.
Al Gore has a house on the coast. $9 million.
Al is the original 'global warming' guy! He is voting with his wallet and his wallet says the whole climate change thing is a sham.
Meanwhile....Eco-hypocrite Prince Harry sits in $9 million private jet for 30 minutes while he waits for staff to arrive in gas-guzzling Range Rover to deliver polo kit for a one day polo match.
I live a fair bit downhill from the ten foot contour line. Given several decades, I don't see any problem in dealing with a one foot rise in sea level.
Greenland better hurry up with the melting in order to get rid of 1/3 of its ice sheet. Which contains 2.7 million cubic kilometers of ice. Right now it is melting at maybe 200-400 km^3 a year. So to melt 900,000 km^3 (1/3 of the total) will take about 2,250 - 4,500 years. Call it 3,000 years.
Last time I checked, 3,000 years puts us into about 5000 AD, which is after the date (2100) that these alarmunists are wetting themselves over.
Math is hard!
Take a look at the load of crap that DEMOCRATS just stuck us with. Hardly anything to do with inflation...but the IRS makes out excellently, as do Obamacare subsidies (gotta take care of 4.9 million new illegals Joe invited to come), electric cars which we don't have enough electricity for yet (where does electricity come from again??) Millions to cut down on cow farts!! Billions to farmers who are discriminated against/? (by whom??) This is really sick. They can't spend our money fast enough. If you vote Democrat you hate America.
PERIOD. https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/08/29/climate-justice-wtf-is-that-randoland-breaks-down-the-inflation-reduction-act-and-its-even-worse-than-we-thought/
Howard does know his geology. Coal smoke is filthy and you don’t need to resort to computer modeled “enhanced greenhouse effect” to melt a lot of ice. Not to mention the two ounces of mercury in a ton of coal. We should be going full steam ahead to natural gas and nuclear, but it turns out that a lot of powerful people have religious objections to that solution.
This lie is the one that will do us all in. Nobody on the right is equipped to fight it. I try. Two years ago I took on a climatologist from Purdue, an influential guy who worked with Sen. Mike Braun to get R's to put some climate ideas on the table.
So this guy (who I'll protect his ID) stands in front of a group of about 200 farmers, mostly, at a county soils meeting and says, "The last 100 years we've seen Indiana climate warm 1.3 degrees. In the next 30 it will go up 6 to 7."
So at the end I raise my hand. He calls on me. I ask, firstly, "Are you telling me you actually believe the rate of climate warmth will go up 20 times what it has in the last 100 years?" (I did the math while he was speaking.)
He smiled. "Are you asking me if I believe my own models?"
"Yes," says I, "Exactly that."
He says, "Well, to be honest, when we first saw these numbers I was surprised. But, yes, I now believe the ten models we used to come up with this scenario."
I had another question. "Let me ask you, how my skeptics do you work with in your daily work?" (He was involved in a large university consortium of Big Ten schools.) I added, "In other words, how many people do you work with do you think were Trump voters?" This line drew a big laugh from the audience. I was winning.
He smiled again. "Well, to be honest, there are no skeptics in the climate field."
I was ready for that. "What about Dr. Judith Curry? Dr. Roger Pielke and his son? Dr. Timothy Ball?"
A look of sheer panic crossed his face. "Well," he stammered, "un, well, I don't really think I'd call Roger Pielke a skeptic."
He closed off the questioning and then we had lunch. I got mine and sat with my farmer host who, being a well-placed name in the no-till world, was seated with the other Purdue guest speaker of the day. The climatologist did not see me at the table as he brought his tray to sit down with his colleague. And then he did. And then he chose another table all by himself.
Later as I was leaving, he saw me and motioned for me to come to his table and look at something on his computer. We spoke pleasantly but oppositely for 20 minutes. I hit him with several more roundhouse punches.
I shouldn't brag. I feel bad doing it. But if a retired high school English teacher who spends a bit of his time reading climate sites can throttle a Phd. climatologist, can't our political representatives do the same?
One of my favorite things about the Climate Change Religion's followers is that they never talk about why warmer temperatures would be bad for many. Would it not be good for colder climes? Don't we use greenhouses to grow stuff so wouldn't a few degrees higher temperatures be good? Wouldn't crops in general do better with the extra warmth and water? Would the drop in energy costs to warm in the winter not offset the energy costs for cooling in the summe? Is more melted ice necessarily bad? If so, why? Also, why do so many people keep building on the coasts?
Anthony Watts put these types of scary stories in perspective a long time ago:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/23/on-being-the-wrong-size/
" And when we do so, we find that the annual loss is around 200 km^3 lost annually out of some 3,000,000 km^3 total. This means that Greenland is losing about 0.007% of its total mass every year … seven thousandths of one percent lost annually, be still, my beating heart …
*****************
Does the pay-walled scary article AA points us to take into account the fact summer ice loss is 99% reversed during the winter?
Also, a trillion tons over the next 80 years sounds scary, except the total mass NOW is up in the quadrillion tons. Do the math. Hint: a quadrillion is 1000 times a trillion.
Note further, claims elsewhere that melting is coming from under the glaciers is yet another admission of how much vulcanism existing in the Arctic---not human-produced CO2--- contributes to ice loss.
(ditto Antarctica).
p.s. I bet Freder thinks those levees in NOLA were built to protect against rising Gulf Coast sea levels, when they are there to deal with storm surges. Local residents fear hurricanes a helluva lot more NOW than they do fuzzy predictionsof future harm based on very little data.
And....btw: still no hurricanes this year....hmmmmm. Now THERE's a cherry the Warmistas won't be picking!!
I always wonder what the contrary is: Do we want to Ice to Advance? Wouldn't that be bad?
I am sure the ice will not stay stagnant. Glaciers either advance or recede, receding glaciers seem like the better of the two. Historically, Greenland's ice has been both smaller and larger. As it is receding, we find settlements and villages. That is where Leif Erikson and his pioneers were.
The glaciers moves forward and receded before man, why do we think we are the cause of the glaciers moving?
For me the advice being offered is that we need to prepare for the effects of climate change which will occur in the current century. There is no value in arguing about climate change or mankind's role in this. There is no benefit in getting people hysterical about trying to stop something which is inevitable.
I think this essentially was Trump's position. Certainly there is no justification in lowering the standard of living of middle class Americans or making us less competitive economically to the Chinese who are worse polluters than we are.
Start drinking more water!! Now!!
I'm torn between noting that not a single dire AGW prediction of the last 50 years has come true, so this one won't either, and noting that Greenland used to be green...after the ice sheets melted.
I see Howard is now a material scientist.
Plymouth Rock 1620 now
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=jX0eD5s2&id=5B4532B3F526212E536E5FD16A32DF806CC2FB1B&thid=OIP.jX0eD5s2Kt5mpud5NJrKQwHaFj&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fsites.udel.edu%2fmaterialmatters%2ffiles%2f2016%2f09%2fplymouth-rock-2h3fxr7.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.8d7d1e0f9b362ade66a6e779349aca43%3frik%3dG%252fvCbIDfMmrRXw%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=768&expw=1024&q=lymouth+rok&simid=607990687490257106&FORM=IRPRST&ck=F044482ED3974DD948DD275E3EA18927&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Owen at 2:46 PM
Greenland ... contains 2.7 million cubic kilometers of ice. Right now it is melting at maybe 200-400 km^3 a year. So to melt 900,000 km^3 (1/3 of the total) will take about 2,250 - 4,500 years.
The melting might be accelerating.
Some processes might be catalytic. One change -- for example, a change of an ocean current -- catalyzes another change -- for example, Greenland's melting. And vice versa.
These catalytic changes might become chaotic.
Climate change is a very serious concern for all of humanity. High-level politicians should discuss the problem intelligently.
If the issue arises in a televised political debate, and all you can talk about is clearing forests' underbrush in order to reduce forest fires, then much of the electorate might perceive you to be too ignorant on the climate-change issue.
Nothing burger, here are the Greenland Ice Data in perspective.
"Climate activists, including government bureaucrats, claim the Greenland ice sheet is melting six times faster than it was 30 years ago.
Thirty years ago, the Greenland ice sheet was barely melting at all. “Six times” almost no ice loss remains almost no ice loss.
When recent ice loss is compared to the full Greenland ice sheet, the loss is so small that it is almost undetectable.
Sea-level measurements contradict claims that Greenland ice loss threatens coastal flooding. NASA satellite instruments, with readings dating back to 1993, show global sea level rising at a pace of merely 1.2 inches per decade, which is not significantly different than the typical rate of sea-level rise since the mid-1800s.
NASA scientists and media pundits have said this about the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets: “The two regions have lost 6.4 trillion tons of ice in three decades; unabated, this rate of melting could cause flooding that affects hundreds of millions of people by 2100.” However, that is far short of even 1 percent of Greenland’s ice mass. As shown in the right graph in Figure 1, below, the total ice loss each year is a nearly undetectable five one-thousandths of one percent (0.005 percent) of the Greenland ice mass."
https://everythingclimate.wpcomstaging.com/greenland-ice-loss-is-a-serious-problem/
Maldives were underwater in recent geological history, since modern humans evolved, and polar bears, for that matter. It was warmer than it is now for thousands of years, especially polar regions, due to orbital considerations. Neither species died out.
Only someone who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old and watched over by a kind and loving God could imagine that the climate could ever hold still in some kind of ideal; In fact, calling it ideal is one more manifestation of the “Texas Sharpshooter” fallacy.
That’s not to say that we aren’t impacting the planet, since we appeared on the scene, we have been wiping out megafauna, for example, except in Africa, where we co-evolved.
When I looked into this many years ago, the take away was each doubling of CO2 gas mattered. But as each doubling takes A LOT OF EMISSIONS, it means earlier output set the stage (if the coefficient is high enough)
So, its CO2 generated in 1950's or 60's that did the real damage.
Population is falling in many places, better tech, more efficiency, means current consumption isn't as bad as that early amount.
Greenland was so named because it was green, historical records show that it used to export beef. Lots of grass grows today around Hudson Bay, the geese fly north to eat it. “Vinland” had a lot of vines, “Flat Rock Land” had a lot of flat rocks.
Records also show that at the time Greenland was abandoned, sea routes were changing due to increasing floating ice.
It seems like people so sure about climate issues would not fear to read a little history.
Unusual weather happens when the Global Cooling ramps up. That control knob is totally based on cloud cover % over the Pacific Ocean blocking Sunshine heat. That cloud cover varies when cosmic rays that cause formations of clouds are blocked by the solar storms emitting the stuff that covers and shields earth from cosmic rays as earth’s magnetism grabs it.
Hence the Maunder Minimum of solar flares means an increase in clouds and that increases global cooling we call ice ages.
Pretending co2 is a control knob trapping heat is a myth.
Mike Sylvester at 3;36.
The probability of high level politicians discussing the "problem" of climate change intelligently is lower than the probability of a herd of unicorns parading down Pennsylvania Avenue to start grazing on the White House lawn.
Climate does change. Whether that's a significant problem or not has become a political football--and our current class of politicians is just not capable of intelligent political discussions.
Mike Sylvester, why don’t you explain how we can prevent the climate from changing, you know, given that the planet wobbles in orbit, that the tropics move, that the moon is moving away and the sun is a somewhat variable star?
Don’t neglect human history, or the fact that for millions of years the planet was 3C warmer than today and there were thirty species of our closest relatives, the great ape, thriving.
The problem with following the science closely is you soon realize that the plans to save the planet boil down to I am supposed to succumb to cold and starvation one frigid dark February night while the enlightened toast my demise with margaritas on a Cuban beach.
When Al Gore, Barack Obama and Joe Biden sell their beachfront properties and move inland, then I'll worry about it.
Hate to keep bragging about my encounter with the climatologist but here’s one round I didn’t win in the moment but only because he lied.
Me: If oceans are rising why aren’t coastal real estate values going down?
Him: They aren’t but insurance rates on houses on the water are.
I go home and research it. Fact-check: FALSE. I got that from two large insurance industry studies. I guess if you can just make up stuff in the moment you can win. Microcosm of the entire left debate tactic.
D in Akron said...
Trollinator 1000: The major ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are on land. If they melt all of the meltwater will be added to the oceans.
******************
Greenland is bowl-shaped under all that ice.
Melting all the ice would result in very large lake.
Antarctica's ice has ZERO chance of melting, as most of it is -50 Celsius. It would take a world-destroying asteroid to force it to melt.
Both Greenland and Iceland have lots of volcanoes. Humans don't control their activity, despite what Great might tell you.
Human-driven??
Has anthropogenic been cast aside???
For someone speaking of scientific matters, Mike Sylwester, you use an awful lot of "mights".
Yet you pass by silently while I and others point out how utterly weak the evidence for the prognostications cited, which speak of "massive" ice losses that are in fact nothing new.
Have you seem the data? Here's a graph of Arctic Sea Ice extent:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Does it show things getting worse?
On the contrary, it shows a minimum back in 2012, which has not been seen since.
And note further, there is NO record of an ice-free Arctic since more than 4 million years ago.
Here's what lefty Slate had to say back in 2014:
https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/the-last-time-the-arctic-was-ice-free-in-summer-modern-humans-didn-t-exist.html
4 million years ago, there was about as much ice in the winter as currently exists in the summer, and summers were probably ice-free. This is an analog for what we may experience in the near future; estimates suggest global temperatures could rise four degrees Celsius higher than today in the next 85 years, about as hot as temperatures were back then.
>>>>>Note the 4 degree increase speculated on is about three times what evern the IPCC is pushing today
2.6 million years ago, geologic uplift forced the closure of Arctic Ocean gateways, like the Bering Strait, and thermally isolated the region. That restricted the Arctic’s circulation, causing a build-up of fresh water and conditions favorable for major ice sheets to form. From that point, there was runaway cooling as ice sheets grew as far south as present-day St. Louis and New York City. The most current cycle of ice ages began, and human ancestors were forced to adapt. This started the transition that would result in homo sapiens.
>>>>Geographic uplift doesn't happen in a decade or two.
Environmental enuresis is totatly uncalled for.
Quick! Tax ourselves into oblivion and reduce productivity at the same time, so we can hold back C02 emissions and be exponentially poorer and less able to pay for mitigation projects when the sea levels do rise!
Charts comparing 2022 Greenland Ice Melts and Runoff to averages between 1981 and 2010 show a significant reduction in both categories.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
Interesting how a belief in Climate Doom can be a tell for so many other things.
"Serious question I have posed for years without a satisfactory answer"
Sir, there is no time for debate. The planet will die unless you drive down to Walmart and purchase $3000 in Gift Cards RIGHT NOW. Sir? Are you in your car?
"New research suggests..."
In plain English:
"We're making up shit to scare people who want to be scared."
The whole world would be better off if they just went to see a horror movie.
’While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise."
"That's how you know it's bullshit."
"This."
It's homeopathic climate science.
Sorry, WaPoo, that's a total fabrication. Greenland is gaining ice, not losing it. Another in a long line of global warming lies and failed crises.
https://electroverse.co/
Fortunately for Europe, cold winters are a thing of the past…
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
Re Antarctica:
Above average snowfall for the past two years over the southern continent may equal or exceed the amount of ice loss from excess outflow from the glaciers and seasonal melting. Snowfall has been increasing over some coastal areas of Antarctica in recent years, but 2021 and 2022 had unusually high snow input. Increased airflow from the north to both Queen Maud Land and Wilkes Land increased warm moist air, resulting in high snowfall. The increased airflow over Wilkes Land also resulted in unusually warm conditions at the South Pole in recent decades (Clem et al., 2021). High snowfall has also been linked to the record low sea ice extent surrounding Antarctica because a lack of sea ice increases humidity."
So....where's the beef??? What do humans have to do with any of this?
Steve Koonin thanks to Paul Homewood: Greenland ice is a complex story, not likely leading to any kind of disaster soon.
here
Buy Greenland!
Best idea Trump had, and that's saying something.
It is named Greenland.
Charts comparing 2022 Greenland Ice Melts and Runoff to averages between 1981 and 2010 show a significant reduction in both categories.
So you're comparing 4.6 billion years of climate change to a few decades of runoff?
This is precisely why we don't take you and your alarmist screaming seriously.
Me: If oceans are rising why aren’t coastal real estate values going down?
Him: They aren’t but insurance rates on houses on the water are.
If this conversation actually happened (and I suspect it only happened in your delusional mind), the person you were talking to is a moron. Insurance doesn't cover flood damage. That is covered by Federal Flood Insurance, which is in deep trouble because they payouts far exceed what is collected in premiums.
Bull****
Mike Sylwester @ 3:36: “…these catalytic changes might become chaotic.”
I think “catalytic” begs the question. What series of ex causes is at work (each thing driving the next, with positive or negative feedback loops) to justify calling changes “catalytic”? As in “surprising change in the quantity/rate/direction of a process, or an unexpected qualitative change”?
I would be interested in learning how a heat-dissipating process (energy used to melt ice) could trigger a positive feedback (runaway melting). I know in Antarctica there are glaciers whose “toes” rest underwater on a rock or sand bar, and there is much fearful speculation about what might happen if the “toes” slipped off the rock or sand —a sudden avalanche of ice? But it is (a) speculation (something the warmunists do a lot of, and very well) and (b) not Greenland, which has very different geography and topology.
“ Your explanation is not accurate. It was called "Greenland" as a marketing ploy to attract settlers”
Is there one contemporary source for this given that Norse records have come down to us? Seems like something that would get mentioned in a saga.
"Charts comparing 2022 Greenland Ice Melts and Runoff to averages between 1981 and 2010 show a significant reduction in both categories."
Yeah out of all the millennia of Greenland Ice, it's THIS thirty year period that's the one which counts. Kinda makes you wonder how much Greenland Ice there was just prior to 1981. How about 2011 to 2021? Oh well.
I've always noticed that the climate warriors purposely ignore or deny the Medieval Warm Period in order to support their hysterics. If our pre modern ancestors could survive, indeed thrive, during warmer times, I'm pretty confident that we could too.
Mike S-
I was being sarcastic there.
Bob Boyd: "Buy Greenland!
Best idea Trump had, and that's saying something."
The New Soviet Democraticals hated the idea because they wanted to save Greenland for their ChiCom and Russki allies.
"Charts comparing 2022 Greenland Ice Melts and Runoff to averages between 1981 and 2010 show a significant reduction in both categories."
I may have to retract my previous comment. I now read this as Gadfly saying that melt and runoff are LESS than than the period cited. So warming is not happening.
Clarification may be required.
Alexisa: "Interesting how a belief in Climate Doom can be a tell for so many other things."
Well, it's never a surprise when a leftist like gadfly comes out in defense of some lefty policy assessment/prescription, so that's a solid data point in your theory.
Maybe Al Gore the Hippy Dippy Climate Man will give us another ten years. That would make, what, four times now?
ga6 said...
"I see Howard is now a material scientist."
He does complex equations, dontcha know. He was a public sector employee that never had to take responsibility for his decisions.
CWJ said...
"Charts comparing 2022 Greenland Ice Melts and Runoff to averages between 1981 and 2010 show a significant reduction in both categories."
I may have to retract my previous comment. I now read this as Gadfly saying that melt and runoff are LESS than than the period cited. So warming is not happening.
Clarification may be required.
***********
Yes. Otherwise rigorous mortification will be setting in.
Freder Frederson said...
Me: If oceans are rising why aren’t coastal real estate values going down?
Him: They aren’t but insurance rates on houses on the water are.
If this conversation actually happened (and I suspect it only happened in your delusional mind), the person you were talking to is a moron. Insurance doesn't cover flood damage.
That is covered by Federal Flood Insurance, which is in deep trouble because they payouts far exceed what is collected in premiums.
******************
The problem is, flooding isn't increasing as a result of climate change. Even the IPCC says so. (Look it up yourself).
The REAL problem is, the government still provides "insurance" against floods that have always been happening. People "move to the nuisance", and their risk is mitigated by cheap insurance. That is changing this year, with rates rising up to 25% annually.
On the flip side: Californians are bleating about "climate change" being the reason Lake Powell is rapidly diminishing---utterly forgetting that the population the artificial lake was designed to service is TEN TIMES larger than planned for.
The Calif. government has known this was coming, yet they have blocked any new dams to make up for the shortfall.
Mike--the reasons that Trump couldn't (or wouldn't) discuss the climate issue "intelligently" is because: a) 90 percent of what gets discussed as "climate" in our politics is absolute nonsense (witness Al Gore); b) to most of the body politic it is not really a very significant issue (check the polls), and c) the climate "believers'" (as opposed to the rest of us who "deny" "climate"--WTF?) religious principles won't allow them to vote for Trump anyway.
(As if Biden spoke "intelligently" about climate).
There is absolutely no question that the surest--arguably the only--way to lift humans out of absolute poverty is through industrialization. Industrialization in many respects causes pollution and environmental degradation--but ironically industrialization and relative wealth provide the relative luxury of limiting and controlling environmental degradation and the wanton destruction of natural resources, as well as an environment in which technological solutions can be developed and implemented.
Africa is a very poor, very undeveloped continent. If you are serious about implementing drastic solutions to "global warming," you are dooming most of Africa to continued poverty.
If you are OK with that--that it is more important that our world be "clean" than that
about a billion Africans might escape from grinding poverty in our lifetimes--then you must be a liberal.
'Meanwhile, the schools in Detroit continue to suffer from lack of resources. Perhaps we should focus on how much of an improvement we can actually make with our trillions of expenditure and burdening. You know, actually make a difference in someone's life right now.'
All of America's shithole cities are run by Democrats.
The people their voted for the mess they are in, let them wallow in it.
The benefit to the climate alarmists of making these "predictions" is that it tends to divert attention away from their previous failed claims in order to address the latest "crisis".
There will always be another crisis.
"Meanwhile, the schools in Detroit continue to suffer from lack of resources."
Is there any school system, anywhere, that claims to have more resources than they actually need?
I didn't think so.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Me: If oceans are rising why aren’t coastal real estate values going down?
Him: They aren’t but insurance rates on houses on the water are.
If this conversation actually happened (and I suspect it only happened in your delusional mind)
The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Why so angry?
Mechanical stress resulting in calving. One of the diverse ways that land-based ice is lost with seemingly disordered causes explained through "climate change".
I don't own any coastal real estate within 1 foot of current sea level. Do you? But I drive a gas-fueled car, and heat and air-condition my home with electricity. Do you? Look at what's happening in Europe and feared there for the coming winter. What problem do YOU think should have the highest priority?
I say: Solve today's problems first. When you're done, solve imaginary problems. When you get to that stage, give me a ring.
Freder Frederson said...
3.3% equals a quarter of a meter, or about 10 inches. Is that something to be worried about?
Well, yes it does if you live in Miami, New Orleans, Houston, or lower Manhattan (and it is even worse for the chemical plants and oil refineries on the Mississippi downstream of New Orleans or on the Houston Ship Canal). "
Freder I live in Miami. The building codes here require new homes to be built 8 feet above sea level. Not at all worried. By the way although basic flood insurance is a federal program its limit is $250,000. Homes on the water worth millions continue to sell and the excess flood carriers happily write policies and those premiums aren't skyrocketing. The real insurance killer here is windstorm which is to be expected in a hurricane zone. However that is being mitigated by building new homes to the current hurricane code and having impact glass windows.
If the direst warnings of incipient world trade collapse come true in the autumn--and they very well might--all this talk of struggling Africans will come to a screeching halt, as many of them will cease struggling.
Don't say it can't happen just because it hasn't happened yet.
'The people their voted for the mess they are in, let them wallow in it.'
There...
tim in vermont at 4:00 PM
why don’t you explain how we can prevent the climate from changing, you know, given that the planet wobbles in orbit, that the tropics move, that the moon is moving away and the sun is a somewhat variable star? ...
The climate is changing much faster than normally.
boatbuilder at 8:24 PM
the reasons that Trump couldn't (or wouldn't) discuss the climate issue "intelligently" is because: a) 90 percent of what gets discussed ... ; b) to most of the body politic it is not really a very significant issue ... and c) the climate "believers'" religious principles won't allow them to vote for Trump anyway.
d) Even though he should have expected a climate-change question to be asked in the debate, he failed to prepare an intelligent answer.
He could have answered, for example, that his Administration will continue to study the scientific research. Whatever solutions might develop, we will have to make our economy even more efficient in order to fund and implement future solutions.
Instead of preparing some intelligent answer he babbled what he happened to think about a controversy where California forest fires might be perversely aggravated by decisions not to clear undergrowth in forests there.
In other words, Trump addressed only a local and trivial issue off the top of his head. He did not prepare an intelligent response to an important question that certainly would be asked.
In that debate, Trump's strategy was to interrupt Biden constantly, hoping to reveal Biden's dementia. Trump's strategy did not include preparing his own intelligent answers to important, predictable questions.
Owen at 6:06 PM
What series of causes is at work ... to justify calling changes “catalytic”? As in “surprising change in the quantity/rate/direction of a process, or an unexpected qualitative change”?
I hope that we will learn the causes.
In the meantime, we should worry about surprising changes in the quantity/rate/direction and about unexpected qualitative changes.
Some climate changes do seem to be happening much faster than normal -- and even might be accelerating.
One cause might be the enormous amount of carbon dioxide that the human population has been releasing into the atmosphere.
This is a serious concern that our US President should be able to discuss intelligently.
"Your explanation is not accurate. It was called "Greenland" as a marketing ploy to attract settlers”
And the parties "switched" after the Civil War...
Ya know, when all is said and done....the annual rise in sea levels for centuries has been about 2mm per year, or about an inch every ten years, after the great surge at the end of the last Ice age roughly 12,000 years ago.
Satellite data since 1979 confirms no surge in sea level rise.
MANY studies support this data, which on Earth comes from measurements taken from continuous New York Harbor records and other long-term sources.
So this nonsense should be filed under "Mann bites Bullshit".
It's very simple: if you're posting on the internet, then you don't really believe in global warming okay? So stop pretending.
This is a serious concern that our US President should be able to discuss intelligently.
8/30/22, 12:10 AM
Bahahahhahahhahahahhhha...We would need a new President if you want THAT to happen. The guy in there now?? Bhahahhahahhahahhahah
Faster than normally? Lol, it’s not, where I am writing this was a brackish bay 13,000 years ago.
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.
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.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा