October 23, 2023
"As the planet warms, larger volumes of warm water are bathing the undersides of West Antarctica’s ice shelves, the giant tongues of ice at the ends of glaciers."
"The sheer mass of these shelves stops the ice on land from flowing more quickly into the open sea. So as the shelves melt and thin, more of the land ice moves toward the ocean, eventually contributing to sea level rise.... A certain amount of accelerated melting is essentially locked in. Even if nations limited global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 Fahrenheit, it wouldn’t do much to halt the thinning."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
87 comments:
Even if nations limited global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 Fahrenheit, it wouldn’t do much to halt the thinning."
What? Nations cannot do anything of the sort.
Politicians can force us all to do stupid stuff that won't amount to anything.
Science is never settled.
Burying the main scientific question: volcanoes under the ice.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/scientists-found-91-volcanoes-under-antarctica
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2982/fire-and-ice-why-volcanic-activity-is-not-melting-the-polar-ice-sheets/
There's a lot to digest in this paper, which apparently finds little to no evidence for the global warming party line. But take a look at Figure B2. Of the 5 inter-glacial warm periods of the last 400,000 years, all of the previous 4 have been warmer than our current inter-glacial.
"Rapid Antarctic Melting Looks Certain, Even if Emissions Goals Are Met...a study found"
Very interesting. I read something last week that said 97% of climate scientists agree they do not want to be defunded. I think this recent study is linked somehow, I just can't put my finger on it...
That giant Antarctic ice shelf has been recognized as unsustainable for a long time, due to ocean currents undermining the sea floor it rests on, not because of climate change.
Is there anything in all of Nature that cannot be done better by Climate Change(tm)?
Calving due to mass accumulation and shearing force. We can only hope that the temperature rises above a fraction of a degree and the ice melts rather than breaks of as sustainable icebergs threatening flora, fauna, and ship.
Look for it all to reverse in 3-5 thousand years. Powerline article on study by Norway government
From the article:
“That very likely means some amount of sea level rise that we cannot avoid.”
“We are relying almost entirely on models here,” Dr. Naughten said.
So, what to do? Those nations worried about their coastlines becoming more flood-prone due to some unknown sea level rise should become proactive instead of complaining, and get busy building/installing barriers to minimize the effects. I'll bet the Dutch have some ideas they can share...
Also, when we see Obama moving off the Vineyard we'll then know there's a problem.
Belief in Global Climate Change is an indicator for gullibility. Among scientists it indicates a desire to be in on the grift.
Do they, in this article or ever, make mention of how much the planet has warmed? In degrees F or C. Or even K. Not how much the models predict it will warm but how much has actually happened.
Also, the plus or minus of the measurement. If someone tells me that the earth has warmed 0.5 degrees but with +/-5 degrees of precision, it is bullshit. They can't even tell if it is warming or cooling with such imprecision.
Ditto the sea waters. How many degrees have they actually warmed? If they won't tell me, along with the precision, I call bullshit and just ignore it.
BTW: Has the arctic ice cap melted yet? They've been predicting it would be totally gone in 10 years pretty consistently since the 1980s. That is, in 1990 they predicted it would be gone by 2000 and so on. And yet, it is still there. It shrinks and grows, as it has for thousands of millenia. But no real change.
John Henry
Can't figure out how to post the guy beating a dead horse .gif
blah blah THE SKY IS FALLING!!! blah blah blah
It's the usual, "If the stuff we say will happen happens, then this other stuff we say will happen as a result will happen as a result." How many degrees of separation from reality is that?
The Earth itself is slowly cooling. The heat output of the Earth comes from two sources- the heat from the Earth's formation and from the decay of radioactive elements (like thorium 232, Uranium 235 and 238, and potassium 40), both of which provide less heat as time goes forward.
The Earth will eventually be a giant ice ball that doesn't thaw until the Sun starts to expand into a red giant star.
“ Rapid Antarctic Melting Looks Certain, Even if Emissions Goals Are Met”
Certainty is very powerful, if melting is certain then it’s cheaper to just wait til it happens and then spend the money to mitigate it without loosing the interest over the next 100 years ( for government, this means don’t borrow money and spend it on co2 reduction now, borrow it in 100 years and you won’t pay the bond holders for the next 100 years, at 5% interest you will have 130 times as much money to spend in 100 years.) But they say it “looks” certain, so is it certain or not? Looks certain is like he appears to be dead.
But the warming fad will quietly disappear soon, and we will move to a new crisis to fund academics and corrupt politicians off of. The young PhDs have to agree with global warming now, or the old geezer PhDs who made up global warming will fire them. But they are going to get a chance to tell their truth, science advances one funeral at a time.
Blogger Big Mike said...
Belief in Global Climate Change is an indicator for gullibility. Among scientists it indicates a desire to be in on the grift.
Yes, the difference between this and the tulip mania is government was not involved with tulips. The South Sea Bubble was more of a government scam, and so the comparison is better. If the Climate Hysteria is not stopped, it will destroy the economy and reduce us to subsistence levels. Eventually, sanity will return but the destruction of Education will delay sanity.
Don't know about you but I'm very, very thankful (mainly to the Hunga-Tonga undersea volcano eruption) for giving us the warming that resulted in this most beautiful and delightful Indigenous Summer I can ever remember. Hope it continues at least until Thanksgiving, when we can bow our heads to offer appropriate thanks for such glorious climate change.
More anti-science, hair-on-fire, global warming crap.
Plus, where did they get the "1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 Fahrenheit" number from?
Here's what the NOAA says: "Despite the last two years (2021 and 2022) not ranking among the five warmest years on record, the global annual temperature increased at an average rate of 0.08°C (0.14°F) per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (0.18°C / 0.32°F) since 1981."
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202213#:~:text=Despite%20the%20last%20two%20years,0.32%C2%B0F)%20since%201981.
And that rise is per decade, not per year.
Both Power Line and Legal Insurrection have written about the Sept. 2023 study by the country of Norway that carbon dioxide emissions by mankind have nothing to so with global warming.
This scam needs to be stopped. We are wasting trillions on this scam.
Ah, yes, more misinformation from American Pravda. Though with the obvious mishandling of the Gaza hospital story to the point that the only potential explanations are blatant antisemitism and/or unfathomable naivete to accept the word of a terrorist organization without any due diligence to the point that it would indicate the entire staff is full of idiots, I'm not sure Pravda is still appropriate. That would require a level of competence not in evidence. So, going forward, should I refer to them as Völkischer Beobachter or the Weekly World News? I want to make sure I follow the correct protocols. Perhaps Weekly Worlds News in German is the compromise we all need.
The Left has been dead wrong about global warming for over 40 years. Why are they correct now?
Run in circles
Scream and shout
Version 2,010
NYT = lying liars lie and lie, Doo-dah, Doo-dah!
Here's a science experiment for yall. Take a glass, fill it with ice. Then fill it with water.
Now wait for the ice to melt.
Watch how much this "sea" rises and overtops the top of the glass and the "sea" spills out on to your table. I think you'll be surprised at what happens.
Quaestor posted a link (an indirect link) to the study I was going to mention. It really puts paid to the CAGW nonsense. I expect it will be ignored by all the best people.
The water always comes up exactly to the shoreline regardless.
Shorter version: Grab and hold tight to your wallet !
For a great majority of the Earth's history, it's been ice free. The problem for us is that we developed our unique capabilities - our cognition, notably - in a world with ice, and I think it's reasonable to suggest that the challenges posed by otherwise-unsurvivable cold placed evolutionary pressure on us that played into the explosion in our cognitive abilities. (IIRC, our basic bodies were already largely evolved to what we are now, upright posture and so forth, by the beginnings of the "first" ice age - the first one that matters to us.)
Why we aren't using those cognitive abilities to figure out how to live comfortably as the planet regresses to its Cenozoic norm instead of impotently playing King Canute, I don't know.
(Yancey's point about entropy encompasses a much longer timeframe!)
BINGO
This is panic-mongering of the highest quality: the Al Gore Platinum Class. A hypothetical mechanism whose power cannot be quantified or even defined, affecting at most a very modest fraction of the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet, adding at most a very modest increment to global sea level over the course of centuries; with no effort to create an integrated picture of all climate forcings. Example: what if this increased ice flow cools the circumpolar ocean (and it will) and causes increased precipitation on the Antarctic ice sheet, so that (net net) it gains mass and lowers sea level? I think that kind of bullshit hypothesis (and many others) needs to be addressed with no less seriousness than these hand-waving grifters have given to the scenario they propose.
"Raymond Zhong is a climate reporter. He joined The Times in 2017 and was part of the team that won the 2021 Pulitzer Prize in public service for coverage of the coronavirus pandemic."
Would a "climate reporter" ever take a skeptical view of the AGW project?
Isn't he hired to do exactly the opposite of skepticism? Isn't he hired to find the sensational and the clickable? And be an "activist" himself? A role many journoliszts play to the hilt.
He was part of a team that won the Pulitzer for coronavirus coverage. Which was probably more fiction than fact, given all the anti-science promotion and the "conspiracy theory" "debunking."
Pass.
Oh noes ... Oh, the NY Times. Is there anyone competent left at the NY Times science desk? They used to be decent 30 years ago. The climate has been generally cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum, the current rise is a little squiggle that has little effect on the trend, and is not unprecedented. The climate hysteria is based on climate model projections that haven't little chance of being valid.
Amazing how everything they discover always has the same significance.
Shout-out to the Norwegians for pointing out that this is complete horse-hockey, as Col. Potter was wont to say.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/10/another-nail-in-the-global-warming-coffin.php
"'We are relying almost entirely on models here,' Dr. Naughten said.
When mathematical representations of reality are the best option available, scientists prefer to test their hypotheses using multiple ones to make sure their findings aren’t the product of a given model’s quirks. Dr. Naughten and her colleagues used only a single model of the interactions between ice and ocean."
Raymond Zhong, who wrote the quoted article in the Times, almost goes full Emily Litella on his own reporting. Good for him.
The planet is NOT warming. Any sentence that starts off "as the planet warms" is selling snake oil. Norway just published 400,000 years of temperature records. The 20th century has been the mildest interglacial period in that time span the n we will enter the start of a new ice age. "Global Warming" models are only based on 20th century records* and calibrated** to 20th century records and further distorted by moving all terrestrial measurement stations to urban heat islands in order to boost recent measurements.
* Excepted where "corrected" to remove the hotter years from the 1930s so as to make it look like this current time is the "hottest ever" of course.
** If you spot a circular logic problem in that set-up you win!
I see the data I referenced was cited immediately by people who got here faster. Nice! Time to turn back the global warming push and return to civilization.
I’m not convinced the proposed policy solutions are of benefit. Show me something that doesn’t require trillions in US Treasury graft and I could be persuaded…
"Ev’rybody’s building the big ships and the boats
Some are building monuments
Others, jotting down notes
Ev’rybody’s in despair
Ev’ry girl and boy
But when Quinn the Eskimo gets here
Ev’rybody’s gonna jump for joy"
If you believe the planet’s warming and want to help us in our efforts to stop the warming, donate now by clicking this link.
If you believe the planet’s cooling and want to help us in our efforts to stop the cooling, donate now by clicking this link.
I will believe that man made climate change is an emergency when those telling me it's an emergency, start acting like it's an emergency.
Sure, why not. Diverse predictions of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate change have been stillborn, otherwise nonviable, or liberally, and with forethought, mischaracterized.
From the article:
“It appears that we may have lost control of the West Antarctic ice-shelf melting over the 21st century,” one of the researchers, Kaitlin A. Naughten, an ocean scientist with the British Antarctic Survey, said at a news briefing.
Kaitlin thinks "we" had control over West Antarctic ice-shelf melting? Isn't that precious?
What a maroon. The British Antarctic Survey must be so proud.
I read the entire article, and noted the complete absence of anything resembling data.
In its place is stuff like this:
Even if nations limited global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 Fahrenheit, it wouldn’t do much to halt the thinning. Staying below 1.5 Celsius is the most ambitious aim of the Paris Agreement, and at the moment, it is unlikely to be achieved.
Which is to say, 1.5ºC above the preindustrial global average. (As John Henry noted above, number needs to be followed by the uncertainty value. It never is. The oldest temperature record is Central England from 1659, and "quasi-global" records don't start until 1850.)
This is a question I've never heard asked: Hold greenhouse gas concentration at the 1800 value. What would the global average temperature be today?
Even assuming 1.5ºC is a valid target — it isn't, as it was pulled out of the IPCC's rectal data bank — the only portion of that change that controlling GHG emissions could possibly limit is that which wouldn't have happened otherwise.
The sky is falling!! Oh, wait...
…trillions of tonnes of ice are lost every year, due to both calving and melt. That is what ice sheets and glaciers do. And the loss is replenished by snowfall over the Antarctic continent. And …the Total Mass Change has remained stable since around 2000. If anything it has risen slightly. This actually corroborates another study in May this year, which found that the Antarctic ice shelf had grown between 2009 and 2019.
Blah Blah Blah. So sick and tired of the climate bull shit.
Sea level rise is not drastically accelerating, and not an imminent threat
Most of the recent alarmism on sea level rise has been due to climate model projections, which foresee a drastic and accelerating increase in sea level rise in the future.
Ocean tide gauge data shows that the sea level trend has not changed in over 100 years, and show no signs of drastic acceleration. In New York City, sea level has risen only 0.94 feet in 100 years, and started well before human carbon dioxide emissions were significant. The trend is unchanged since 1856. All of the perceived acceleration comes from satellite measurements and could be within the range of measurement error.
Original Mike said...
"There's a lot to digest in this paper, which apparently finds little to no evidence for the global warming party line. But take a look at Figure B2. Of the 5 inter-glacial warm periods of the last 400,000 years, all of the previous 4 have been warmer than our current inter-glacial."
Which kinda pisses me off. What are we chopped liver? No warming for us? We not good enough to get the full warming treatment?
But remember, all of this is based on computer simulation. Having created a complex simulator myself, I kind of understand the limits of equations that represent ideal behaviors, where no unknown complex variables exist. You only realize how far off base these simulators are, when you start making runs, and seeing bizarre results. Then, the adjustments to the programming start: Fudge factors that help to account for the variables that cannot be defined. Then you run it again, to see how well a known history could be predicted by your simulator. Iterate. Adjust. Iterate again.
The climate scam has enriched a select group of people, and hoodwinked a couple of generations, who remain clueless where these prognostications actually come from. Like legislation, people don't want to see the sausage made, they just want the comfort of knowing there's a potential problem out there, and 'Top Men' are looking at it. Top. Men.
It's an interesting conundrum for the shrills. As screwed up as YouTube is, there's a cornucopia of knowledge there that everyone can access. A shit-load of trash as well but it's not that hard to spot.
Always push back against legislation curtailing FOS.
Yancey Ward:
The Earth will eventually be a giant ice ball that doesn't thaw until the Sun starts to expand into a red giant star.
OMG! Thanks for the heads up! Lessee, in five billion years I should be able to....
Jk, but it's amusing/confusing that there are so many people who react that hysterically over non-important bits of information they don't understand.
“But take a look at Figure B2. Of the 5 inter-glacial warm periods of the last 400,000 years, all of the previous 4 have been warmer than our current inter-glacial.”
And isn’t it interesting that there isn’t any geologic evidence that someplace like Florida was under water during any of those previous warm periods.
RideSpaceMountain said...
"Rapid Antarctic Melting Looks Certain, Even if Emissions Goals Are Met...a study found"
Very interesting. I read something last week that said 97% of climate scientists agree they do not want to be defunded. I think this recent study is linked somehow, I just can't put my finger on it...
Heritage Foundation notes: In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever mention this?
Lately, Biden has committed another $1.2 billion to vacuum up "greenhouse gases" and $7 billion for "H2Hubs" to eliminate carbon emissions. And the beat goes on . . .
Blogger Joe Smith
Can't figure out how to post the guy beating a dead horse .gif
Can't. You have to have the url of one on the web and link to it.
Thusly.
Original Mike said...
There's a lot to digest in this paper, which apparently finds little to no evidence for the global warming party line. But take a look at Figure B2. Of the 5 inter-glacial warm periods of the last 400,000 years, all of the previous 4 have been warmer than our current inter-glacial.
Covid exposed the lie that scientists, are immune from responding to incentives.
The core problem with ACGCC (anthropogenic, catastrophic, global, climate, change.) Collecting data for less than 150 years and citing it, is truly nothing but weather.
Parts of the nation have had some major rainfalls this summer. The talking heads and psuedo climatologist, say things like its been the 3rd time in 20 years they have had a 100 year flood...proving ACGCC. But 100 year floods are the 100 floods in 10,000 years. Not 3 in 300 years.
People are so far from understanding science and math, they can be convinced of almost anything, with a few charts, or a couple ven diagrams (right Kamala Harris?)
How does this square with the Antarctica sea ice's growing trend since 1979?
Bueller? Greta? Al Gore? --- anyone?
Original Mike said...
There's a lot to digest in this paper, which apparently finds little to no evidence for the global warming party line. But take a look at Figure B2. Of the 5 inter-glacial warm periods of the last 400,000 years, all of the previous 4 have been warmer than our current inter-glacial.
I think that a significant portion of the population -- certainly most of those under 30 -- have no clue that that climate has always changed and that we've known this for a couple of hundred years already.
“We are relying almost entirely on models here,” Dr. Naughten said.
And if the models don’t produce scary outcomes, they are revised until they do. That’s how you get funding.
Mathematical models that pretend to forecast out 100 years are almost entirely fiction.
look, theres a meteor
Meh--I don't want to poke too much fun at the twits who occupy the NYT newsroom--but my house is 1,200 feet above sea level. They'll be drowning in Manhattan long before the sea gets to me.
I will say this. I have a physicist friend who says that the main cause of variations in global temperature over all these millenia is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And that amount of CO2 has varied widely over time--even before mankind came on earth. He also argues that over the last 100 years or so the amount of CO2 produced per unit of Gross National Product has dropped significantly. I.e. that means we are getting more efficient. OTOH the significant increase in GNP means that, despite our efficiency, there's been a slight icrease in CO2, Still we are far below the historic levels of CO2.
Enigma already mentioned the unmentionable cause of warm water under the Antarctic ice. Hot rocks. Volcanic activity.
Of course NASA discounts this idea that warm water from hot rock could be the cause of calving ice sheets. The surface air temperature in Antarctica is stable to down- mostly down. Ice sheets hanging out over the water can’t grow unless the ice mass it’s coming from is getting bigger and flowing under the pressure of accumulating ice on top.
And regardless of the water temperature underneath as the floating ice area gets larger it is subjected to more mechanical stress from things like wind and current. Ice is not a structurally strong material. It will eventually break apart. A good thing unless you want the Earth to be a giant ice ball devoid of life.
I'll start paying attention to climate change and rising sea levels the very minute Obama uproots his ass from his mansions on Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii.
And not a second before.
Here is some real science on this stuff and not this bull shit you hear on TV. In short, the 'Climate Change' groupies are, well, mistaken to put it mildly.
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2mJcfBUHc3gTiNq7leyeo6V0IXNeF1oAuerVSJTsO_nPmEziNQK_43b_o
John Henry and Hey Skipper tell us all the data is BS, meanwhile Original Mike and others use said data to argue about ancient climate.
Seems like y'all need to decide whether that data is believable or not.
FINALLY! some GOOD NEWS!
according to 'the paper of record' (or, whatever they call themselves)..
IT IS TOO LATE!!!!
There's NO POINT in worrying anymore about global warming.. BECAUSE, according to the EXPERTS!
IT IS TOO LATE!!!!
No need to do ANYTHING! because IT IS TOO LATE!!!!
We can get on with our lives, because: IT IS TOO LATE!!!!
HURRAY!!!
Where is the evidence of human causation??? The Earth varies in temperature over millenia. Global warming is a scam by the same leftist cabal trying to kill all Jewish people. Stop falling for it, people!!
Got a new tag suggestion... Climate Coprophagia.
Made my decision years ago to move to higher ground.
I am sure Hpuddinghead will be along shortly to write 3000 words describing how global warming is going to kill all of us.
Power line just showed that man made global warming is just bunk.
There is no doubt climate changes. But so what? Man can't stop it. Adapt and overcome if it get's worse. Grow more wheat in the North, etc. The climate change movement is all about graft and control.
There is no doubt climate changes. But so what? Man can't stop it. Adapt and overcome if it get's worse. Grow more wheat in the North, etc. The climate change movement is all about graft and control.
Fake news.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
"Climate" scientists are all in a tizzy because the heat balance between incoming solar long-wave (visible light/UV) radiation and outgoing long wave (infrared) is out of balance by 0.6-w/m2, according to their models. Each of those incoming/outgoing numbers is about 300 w/m2 (don't have the exact numbers), but the uncertainty is +/- 17 w/m2. Which means an imbalance of 0.6 w/m2 is functionally equivalent to 0. There is no climate crisis.
The Mushroom Media Conspiracy will never tell their readers about this result. They are scare-mongers.
@Mark: John Henry and Hey Skipper tell us all the data is BS, meanwhile Original Mike and others use said data to argue about ancient climate.
Seems like y'all need to decide whether that data is believable or not.
Bollocks. I never said any such thing. (Why is it that progressives are so hot to say what someone said, rather than quote what that someone said?)
To refresh your memory: I asserted that the 1.5ºC increase over preindustrial average temperature is completely arbitrary; the absence of a confidence interval is fraudulent; and, the stunning silence over what global average temperature would be in the absence of any change in GHG is self-indicting.
In contrast, Original Mike et al are arguing ancient climate. Ancient climate <> post industrial climate. They are no more alike than chalk and cheese.
Lefty Mark reveals he is just as foolish in regard to Teh Data™ as he is about Teh Science™.
Hint to the clueless, for what good it will do I don't know: Not all measurements are equal, not all collections of measurements are equal, etc etc etc.
“Sea level rise is not drastically accelerating, and not an imminent threat
Most of the recent alarmism on sea level rise has been due to climate model projections, which foresee a drastic and accelerating increase in sea level rise in the future.”
One of the things seemingly not taken into account by those fearful about rising sea levels is that of economic obsolescence. Say the oceans were rising an inch a decade (they aren’t). That is 10” a century which may mean that the ocean might advance several feet a century. Fine. Except that most buildings become obsolete in maybe half a century, or maybe a third, based on IRS depreciation schedules that means that the buildings would normally be replaced 2-3 times a century. Why not rebuild a foot or so higher up, every time. Economic cost of that is essentially zero.
Each substance contains its opposite, making for a continual circular exchange of generation, destruction, and motion that results in the stability of the world ...
From Wikipedia on Heraclitus.
Wikipedia
When I've mentioned to Leftists the simple fact that ice takes up more volume than water their response is to roll their eyes and attack me personally. Then they mutter something about the ground under the ice entering the oceans entering the water and that's what raises the sea level.
Of course, when you start to discuss that they get mad and call me more names.
“When I've mentioned to Leftists the simple fact that ice takes up more volume than water their response is to roll their eyes and attack me personally. “
Yes, even Issac Asimov wrote an article in the 60’s or so that due to buoyancy and density melting floating sea ice does not raise sea level, the only way to raise sea level with ice is to melt land glaciers that flow into the sea, during the ice ages sea level dropped because the water left the ocean to sit on the land as ice. So Greenland and Antarctica are the last hope that doomers have to raise sea level. Mid continental glacier melt in Europe and the Rockies and Himalayas would mostly go into lakes and groundwater recharge. Assuming that the temp is really going up.
I thought the Lightbringer's election stopped the ocean's rise
Rapid melting seems certain.... The Israelis bombed a hospital, 500 dead.
OMG, OMG, OMG.
Oh, the NYT?
100 year floods are the 100 floods in 10,000 years.
Actually the phrase 100 year flood (or other event) has been discouraged. Because some dolts (lot of reporters) seemed to think they could only occur once every 100 years. The preferred term is 1% chance flood. Not that NYT reporters understand that.
My skepticism about man's contribution to warming started when I heard that horrible cry, The science is settled!".
WTF? Settled? Based on (several) models using a can't be recreated data (ha!) base from cherry picked, divergent sources, by those with skin/grift in the game. Projecting the outcome of a system with hundreds upon hundreds of (often poorly understood) variables. And projecting very specific outcomes a hundred or more years hence?
Oh the models don't reflect what is happening? Just wait, I can adjust that...
Billions of bucks at stake.... what could go wrong?
"the simple fact that ice takes up more volume than water"? Are you a moron?
'"the simple fact that ice takes up more volume than water"? Are you a moron?'
Ruh-roh.
The "climate boiling" somehow missed sunny Southern California. We have had a very cool summer, preceded by a very wet winter that not a single "expert" predicted. Sea level rise in most places amounts to a foot of rise per century. But climate is a chaotic, dynamic system not fully understood. The big grift is in climate science right now.
One point that everyone misses is that "West" Antarctica has been melting during this inter-glacial. It is down about 90% from its peak 20k years ago. It is just doing what it has been doing for thousands of years.
At some point the large ice shelf will carve off. NO ONE knows when that will be. Models are just models, they are not prophecy. If an inter-glacial lasts long enough, West Antarctica ice melts away. This should surprise anyone. "East" Antarctica, which is the lions share of the ice, shows no such loss over the last 20k years.
Post a Comment