ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

TheBeastie said:
Yeah I love that map, almost all the up arrows are light green, so 0-3mm a year and most of the others are some gigantic arrows pointing down.
The reason why the green arrow is 0-3mm despite being super advanced measurement technology is that its so tiny they aren't even sure there is any movement at all, if it was 1-3mm it would help your argument but clearly its so tiny can't cant even give you guys 1mm, 1mm is friggin tiny. I my self can't believe they can't give it 1-3mm and I am sure they would of loved to have 1-3mm but they obviously don't want to by liars so its 0-3mm and I respect them for that.
Zero-3mm in other words.

To me its tiny, and consistent with the movements in the last 15,000 years and there is no way cutting co2 is going to stop that movement.
It amounts to a big nothing.
We can pump and will pump for 100's of years yet and not have a problem other than say too much vegetation and thus wildlife growth and activity.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read anything I wrote or any of the information associated with that map. The green arrows indicate a locations where the rate is between 1-3 mm/yr, that is not an uncertainty interval. When you click on the arrow, it gives you the rate for that particular location and a 95% confidence interval. Most of the rates with green arrows are just under the 3 mm/yr rate and the confidence interval is pretty tight. There are also plenty of yellow arrows, indicating 3-6 mm/yr.

3 mm/yr is one foot every hundred years. Might not sound like much to you, but you don't live in the Marshall Islands. Places along the Gulf and East coast are rising at twice that rate. You also need to account for the fact that the rate is accelerating as continental ice loss and thermal expansion of sea water are increasing. Places like Galveston will likely see 2 feet of rise over the next century. That is enough to put water over the sea wall with even a minor hurricane. New Orleans may see over 5 feet of rise. That would put most of the city under water. You still owe me an explanation of how those processes won't contribute to accelerating sea level rise. I suppose you'll just link to a Brietbart article that says none of it is real, it's all a conspiracy to take your freedom away.
 
TheBeastie said:
The reason why the green arrow is 0-3mm despite being super advanced measurement technology is that its so tiny they aren't even sure there is any movement at all, if it was 1-3mm it would help your argument but clearly its so tiny can't cant even give you guys 1mm, 1mm is friggin tiny.
Click to expand...
1-3mm a YEAR. Over decades.

Would you be incapable of measuring 60mm? If so, then you have bigger problems than not understanding climate change.
We can pump and will pump for 100's of years yet and not have a problem other than say too much vegetation and thus wildlife growth and activity.
Click to expand...
We already have problems with ocean acidification and desertification due to higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures.

The reason climate change denial will fail in the long term is not that people will understand the science; the average IQ is, after all, 100. The reason they will fail is that people will look out their windows and see their coastlines being eroded away and submerged. They will see pictures of what is happening to coral reefs. They will look at the thermometer outside their windows. And they will reject climate change denial in favor of the evidence they see with their own eyes.
 
Five facts about the newly-leaked U.S. climate change report:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/n...ut-the-leaked-us-climate-change-report/84943/

Includes:
According to the report's key findings:

"The global climate continues to change rapidly compared to the pace of the natural variations in climate that have occurred throughout Earth’s history. Trends in globally averaged temperature, sea level rise, upper-ocean heat content, land-based ice melt, Arctic sea ice, depth of seasonal permafrost thaw, and other climate variables provide consistent evidence of a warming planet."
"The frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events are increasing in most continental regions of the world."
"The frequency and intensity of extreme temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases. Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world."
"We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era. For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence. Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate."
"Without major reductions in these emissions, the increase in annual average global temperatures relative to preindustrial times could reach 9oF (5oC) or more by the end of this century."
"Longer-term climate records over past centuries and millennia indicate that average temperatures in recent decades over much of the world have been much higher, and have risen faster during this time period, than at any time in the past 1,700 years or more, the time period for which the global distribution of surface temperatures can be reconstructed."
Click to expand...
 
^^ Hehe... Humans have the amazing capacity to ignore watts happening around them?
9WYUw1.gif


... and American Ben Franklin could see the problem...
22mostmendieat0a25wejust0adon27tburythem0auntiltheyare0a70220a0a0a-benjamin0afranklin-default.png


Fantasy SO much more fun than reality eh? (Until it shows up and smacks you... sorta like it's doing now. :wink: )
 
Well if you won't believe government, NGO and independent scientists, how about the asset management/investment companies (including those managing fossil fuel assets) that have issued their own reports on the financial risks associated with climate change?
 
...And where do you think they get their data and info from ?...
...or do you suspect they have a all knowing , divine advisor hidden away ?

But of course we all trust the finance organisations to do the right thing for the benifit of society in general ! :roll:
 
Like many doom-mongers before him, Al Gore's predictions of impending disaster have fallen somewhat short of the mark -- a point to keep in mind as his Inconvenient Sequel hits theatres this summer.

It's a good thing he was wrong, too, because I was worried we might not be around in 2017, given the alarms he was sounding in 2006's An Inconvenient Truth!

For one thing, I thought sea levels would have risen 20 feet by now thanks to the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Al Gore claimed that this would happen in the "near future," but thankfully, we've been spared so far. In fact, sea levels seem to be rising at maybe three millimetres per year. Twenty feet is over six thousand millimetres, so at this rate, we wouldn't even be halfway by the year 3017.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html

And the article it mentions about the breakdown http://www.dailywire.com/news/14912/al-gore-back-sequel-inconvenient-truth-here-were-9-aaron-bandler#
 
Hillhater said:
...And where do you think they get their data and info from ?...
...or do you suspect they have a all knowing , divine advisor hidden away ?

But of course we all trust the finance organisations to do the right thing for the benifit of society in general ! :roll:
Click to expand...

You're right - they're motivated by greed and their own self-interest, no accusations of political agenda. And if the conspiracy theorists are to be believed they have all sorts of resources and the inside track on everything. So if they're saying "oh, this shit is real" and are acting on it, you might want to take notice. "Follow the money" isn't that what you suspicious lot usually say?
 
TheBeastie said:
Like many doom-mongers before him, Al Gore's predictions of impending disaster have fallen somewhat short of the mark -- a point to keep in mind as his Inconvenient Sequel hits theatres this summer.
Click to expand...


Typical denier misinformation. You don't even know what Al Gore predicted because you never saw the movie or read anything he wrote. You are just parroting back what you read on your right-wing anti-science websites. For one thing, neither he, nor anybody else ever said sea levels" would be 20 feet higher by now" as you claim. That is just how much the COULD rise if all of Greenland melted, and that would play out over a few hundred years. The actual predictions for sea level rise are more on the order of 3 feet in the next 100 years, which is pretty scary if you live near the coast. If you live in the Marshall Islands, it means your whole country will disappear. New Orleans and big parts of Florida will get flooded out, too.
 
'so frocking what' :p

Hey the eclipse was cool! It was interesting how the obscuration seemed to make the sunlight more intense, while the earth become obviously shaded. That is counterintuitive to me.

Then looking thru a welding shade glass showed the actual obscuration of about 80% for our area. Really cool. I'm sure eclipses and full moons also tie in with balance of nature here on earth. And magnetics and sound, and maybe thought? :D
 
Curbing Climate Change: Why It’s So Hard to Act in Time:
http://www.theenergycollective.com/desmog/2411293/curbing-climate-change-hard-act-time

Starts:
This summer I worked on the Greenland ice sheet, part of a scientific experiment to study surface melting and its contribution to Greenland’s accelerating ice losses. By virtue of its size, elevation and currently frozen state, Greenland has the potential to cause large and rapid increases to sea level as it melts.

When I returned, a nonscientist friend asked me what the research showed about future sea level rise. He was disappointed that I couldn’t say anything definite, since it will take several years to analyze the data. This kind of time lag is common in science, but it can make communicating the issues difficult. That’s especially true for climate change, where decades of data collection may be required to see trends.

A recent draft report on climate change by federal scientists exploits data captured over many decades to assess recent changes, and warns of a dire future if we don’t change our ways. Yet few countries are aggressively reducing their emissions in a way scientists say are needed to avoid the dangers of climate change.

While this lack of progress dismays people, it’s actually understandable.
Click to expand...
 
Earth rewrote record books in 2016 (not at all a good thing):
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/n...-climate-report-hottest-year-on-record/84979/

Begins:
Thursday, August 17, 2017, 5:13 PM - In a new international report, hundreds of scientists from around the world have now confirmed that 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded, in 137 years of record keeping. Here are the top five findings from the 2016 State of the Climate report.

In January, several world agencies, including NOAA, NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency, flagged 2016 as the hottest year so far on record. Following 2014 and 2015, this was the third straight "hottest year on record" that we've seen in a row.

While the conclusions of these agencies were not in dispute, the official confirmation of where the year stands takes a bit more time, as scientists from around the world weigh in for the annual State of the Climate report, published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. By examining temperatures, precipitation patterns and amounts, plus changes in atmospheric circulations, ocean levels, snow cover, sea ice and glaciers, and going over the extreme weather events of the year, the goal of the report is to take stock of the global climate, based on all of these factors, and see how the year stacks up in the record books.

So, from over 400 leading scientists in the field, here are the top five findings of the report:
Click to expand...

Includes:3) Ice and snow are melting away...
36497620321_b72eec452c_b.jpg


4) Ocean heat and meltwater are driving sea levels up

:(
 
Warren said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZDPXQrUM5w
Click to expand...

[C]omments on YT kinda... disturbing... [sigh]
 
The Strange Future Hurricane Harvey Portends
For each degree Celsius of warming the atmosphere is able to hold 6 percent more water. For a planet that’s expected to warm by 4 degrees by the end of the century, that means a transition to a profoundly different climate.
Click to expand...

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/the-strange-future-hurricane-harvey-portends/538557/?utm_source=yahoo&yptr=yahoo&ref=yfp
 
Obviously the Arctic ice is not as depleted as some thought it was ..
A sailing expedition to the North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has been forced to turn back, 590 nautical miles short of its destination, after the yachts found their passage blocked by large quantities of an unexpected frozen white substance.
Click to expand...
https://www.facebook.com/ArcticMissionUK/
 
EcoWatch.jpg

[crunchbase.com]:
EcoWatch is an environmental website reporting on environmental news, ebikes, green living, and sustainable businesses.
Click to expand...

How Exxon Used the New York Times to Make You Question Climate Science :
https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-new-york-times-2479595376.html

Starts:
A breakthrough study from Harvard unearths the extent Exxon has gone to in order to destroy the public's trust in climate change science.

Last week, Harvard University researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes (of Merchants of Doubt fame) published the first peer-reviewed study comparing ExxonMobil's internal and external communications on climate change.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Hillhater said:
Obviously the Arctic ice is not as depleted as some thought it was ..
A sailing expedition to the North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has been forced to turn back, 590 nautical miles short of its destination, after the yachts found their passage blocked by large quantities of an unexpected frozen white substance.
Click to expand...
https://www.facebook.com/ArcticMissionUK/
Click to expand...

Nobody said the North Pole is ice free. That won't happen for another decade or two. However, right now, the arctic sea ice extent is 1.8 million square miles below the 1981-2010 average. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
 
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.
Click to expand...
 
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.
Click to expand...
well, that just proves how useful "peer-reviewed " documents and conclusions are...
...on both sides of the argument !
..I wonder if her corrections were "peer reviewed" ? ....or does serious research just get posted on Facebook now ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top