ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Thats a pretty cool website https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html but to me it highlights the issue to me that we can pump CO2 like crazy and it barely moves.

I like the 'Isle of the dead' sea marker near Port Arthur which was cut into the rock over 170 years ago.
http://portarthur.org.au/historic-study-of-sea-level-change-continues-at-port-arthur-after-169-years/
38751.jpg


Whether the tide is in or out it hasn't moved much. I think it would be great if there was a live HD webcam permanently fixed looking on it so when folks get too much climate change news they can just load this up and see the level hasn't changed.
Instead in Australia we are shutting down coal power stations even when we need them and have the poor now turning off their refrigerators before they go to bed because electricity is now too expensive. https://youtu.be/a-OSNLqQ0qU

If theres a short period of lack of rainfall in Australia (which has now passed and dams are full) or its a forest fire its blamed on climate change and where all doomed but when every single state in Australia posts its highest wheat production ever recorded it has nothing to do with climate change and is just ignored etc.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/nrn-record-winter-crop/8268564
 
TheBeastie said:
Thats a pretty cool website https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html but to me it highlights the issue to me that we can pump CO2 like crazy and it barely moves.

I like the 'Isle of the dead' sea marker near Port Arthur which was cut into the rock over 170 years ago.
http://portarthur.org.au/historic-study-of-sea-level-change-continues-at-port-arthur-after-169-years/

Whether the tide is in or out it hasn't moved much. I think it would be great if there was a live HD webcam permanently fixed looking on it so when folks get too much climate change news they can just load this up and see the level hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about that marker at Isle of the Dead, Port Arthur and what the Earth's crust is doing at that location , so let's turn to the scientific, peer-reviewed literature by experts in this sort of thing: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL016813/full

Observations of sea level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, southeastern Australia, based on a two-year record made in 1841–1842, a three-year record made in 1999–2002, and intermediate observations made in 1875–1905, 1888 and 1972, indicate an average rate of sea level rise, relative to the land, of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/year over the period 1841 to 2002. When combined with estimates of land uplift, this yields an estimate of average sea level rise due to an increase in the volume of the oceans of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm/year, over the same period. These results are at the lower end of the recent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of global average rise for the 20th century.
Click to expand...

That estimate is in line with what is shown on the NOAA map. We probably have a couple hundred yeas before sea level becomes a major problem, but the early effects are already showing up at lower lying areas. Parts of Miami flood from below at high tide nowadays. Add a foot, or even a few inches, to a hurricane storm surge, and it can become a big deal. In any event, sea-level rise is just one aspect of climate change. The real problems in the next 100 years will be due to increasing temperatures of both atmosphere and oceans.
 
jimw1960 said:
.... That estimate is in line with what is shown on the NOAA map. We probably have a couple hundred yeas before sea level becomes a major problem, but the early effects are already showing up at lower lying areas. Parts of Miami flood from below at high tide nowadays. Add a foot, or even a few inches, to a hurricane storm surge, and it can become a big deal. In any event, sea-level rise is just one aspect of climate change. The real problems in the next 100 years will be due to increasing temperatures of both atmosphere and oceans.
Click to expand...
Thanks for injecting the reality perspective. However, making a 100 year projection is near impossible. Projections I've seen show a widening band of variation over time with quite significant upper & lower limit differences the farther out the projection. Your suggestion that it not being a major problem until next century is contingent on the lower limits.

Many of us believe that the higher limits are far more probable. As evidence, take the IPCCC reports, one about every 4-5 years or so. Each subsequent report said the previous was wrong by a large margin, having underestimated the extent. What is shown by this is the degree that climate tipping points are breached and the rate of acceleration in the trends. Also, arctic & anarctic sea ice extents - scientists are alarmed at the pace of the melting, and are saying that what they projected several years ago is now likely to happen in half the time. Hence, an ice free arctic by 2040:
Figure52.png

That means lots more water in the ocean and ocean water expansion due to temperature uptake. I suggest that by mid-century, we'll see at least a 6 meter rise, accounting for rapid acceleration.
 
arkmundi said:
Hence, an ice free arctic by 2040:
That means lots more water in the ocean and ocean water expansion due to temperature uptake. I suggest that by mid-century, we'll see at least a 6 meter rise, accounting for rapid acceleration.
Click to expand...

Actually, arctic ice is floating sea ice. So, when it melts, it won't cause additional sea level rise. While I agree with you that the increased thermal uptake will cause expansion that increases sea-level rise, a 6-meter rise by mid century is nowhere in the realm of possibility. Melting of the major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could cause that sort of rise, but it would take hundreds of years, even at an accelerating rate.
 
jimw1960 said:
[Actually, arctic ice is floating sea ice. So, when it melts, it won't cause additional sea level rise. Although, I agree with you that the increased thermal uptake will cause expansion that increases sea-level rise, a 6-meter rise by mid century is nowhere in the realm of possibility. Melting of the major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could cause that sort of rise, but it would take hundreds of years, even at an accelerating rate.
Click to expand...
Well yes, true. But as goes the Arctic, so goes Greenland, and the Anarctic. We're in a heating, melting world. Unfortunately, we'll not be around in 40 years to debate the issue.
 
arkmundi said:
jimw1960 said:
[Actually, arctic ice is floating sea ice. So, when it melts, it won't cause additional sea level rise. Although, I agree with you that the increased thermal uptake will cause expansion that increases sea-level rise, a 6-meter rise by mid century is nowhere in the realm of possibility. Melting of the major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could cause that sort of rise, but it would take hundreds of years, even at an accelerating rate.
Click to expand...
Well yes, true. But as goes the Arctic, so goes Greenland, and the Anarctic. We're in a heating, melting world. Unfortunately, we'll not be around in 40 years to debate the issue.
Click to expand...

While I don't doubt what you say is coming eventually if we take no action, I think it hurts the cause to say all that is coming within 40 years as that is also against the prevailing scientific evidence. When doom is predicted and it doesn't happen, then the deniers take it as evidence that they were right all along. Hell, they do that anyway. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a denier claim something like "Al Gore said Florida would be underwater by now" when he never said any such thing.
 
Punx0r said:
......... your reference backed up neither the word, the figures, the meaning, nor the spirit of your claims. It contained none of what you claimed it did and directly contradicted the rest......
Click to expand...
? What "claims" do you think i made exactly ?
The reference contained the data i posted regarding carbon/CO2 emissions from natural sources.....if you read it.
I did not say i accepted or agreed with all aspects or conclusions of that report, i only used it because i expected jimw would not dispute its validity as a source of data.
 
LockH said:
Scientists made a detailed “roadmap” for meeting the Paris climate goals. It’s eye-opening.
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/23/15028480/roadmap-paris-climate-goals
:
Click to expand...
Its Eye opening in more than one way.!
Its "eye watering" in its lack of accuracy in this statement...
3) Technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere have to start scaling up massively, until we’re artificially pulling 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by 2050 — nearly double what all the world’s trees and soils already do.......
Click to expand...
 
5 gigatons is only one fifth of the CO2 that we are pumping into the air, so what is so bogus about a statement that we would need to pull at least that much out in order to stabilize atmospheric CO2? Save for planting more trees, I don't know what technologies could be scaled up to remove that much CO2, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to figure out a way to do it--or, stop producing it.
 
[
jimw1960 said:
5 gigatons is only one fifth of the CO2 that we are pumping into the air, so what is so bogus about a statement that we would need to pull at least that much out in order to stabilize atmospheric CO2? .....
Click to expand...
Nothing.....but that was not the statement made !

.....3) Technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere have to start scaling up massively, until we’re artificially pulling 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by 2050 — nearly double what all the world’s trees and soils already do.......
Click to expand...
Do you see the difference ?
It a matter of relavent scale. Their statement inplies that Man has to develop CS technologies with capacities way in excess of Natures own capacity.
When in fact Natures trees and soils already capture over 200 gigatons of CO2 per year !
That puts a different "spin" on the statement altogether,
Mans efforts to suck out 5 gtons doesnt seem so daunting when stated that way, especially considering that 200 gtons is an estimate....with a likely error of +_ 10% !
 
Hillhater said:
When in fact Natures trees and soils already capture over 200 gigatons of CO2 per year !
That puts a different "spin" on the statement altogether, Mans efforts to suck out 5 gtons doesnt seem so daunting when stated that way, especially considering that 200 gtons is an estimate....with a likely error of +_ 10% !
Click to expand...

Dude, you really need to look up what the word "net" means. First you argue that plants are emitting almost 200 gigatons, so man's contribution is insignificant. Then you argue that plants are taking up 200 gigatons, so nothing we can do will be meaningful by comparison. The statement in that article was correct, based on NET plant uptake, which is a small fraction of what humans are dumping in the atmosphere. You, on the other hand, don't know what you are talking about. How do you even balance your checkbook if you don't know how to subtract outflow from inflow?
 
Oh, i know what net means,
.... and I know you want it to mean "net" ..
...but Net was never mentioned in the statement.
Infact it is very clearly talking about the amount of CO2 "sucked" out of the atmosphere.
...PS...incase you had missed it,..cheque books disapeared many years ago ! :roll:
 
Right, so you are just playing semantics after all.

It is not necessary to explicitly state qualifiers, such as "net", when it is obvious from the context of a discussion that it is included. Before you argue that it is not obvious, well, it seems everyone but you understood.

It looks like you lost the point long ago and are now splitting hairs in an attempt to avoid admitting it. Whatever denier website told you that human CO2 emissions were insignificant was wrong or misleading. Just accept it and move on...
 
Punx0r said:
.....It is not necessary to explicitly state qualifiers, such as "net", when it is obvious from the context of a discussion that it is included. Before you argue that it is not obvious, well, it seems everyone but you understood.
...
Click to expand...
So you are now speaking for "everyone" ?
...it has not occurred to you that maybe its only "obvious" to someone who has a preconcieved expectation of the meaning, ? ..rather than a logical reading of the statement
...You are assuming it meant Net, even though it was not mentioned or implied.
...whilst I read it as either a dumb error ( unlikely ?)...OR a deliberate misreprentation of facts to convey a different perception in the mind of the readers !
 
No one else seemed to have trouble comprehending it?

It was not mentioned because it is implied!

Let's just have a look at the image from the top of the page I linked to earlier when you first started claiming human CO2 emissions weren't significant.

Carbon_Cycle.gif


See the trees and the oceans have arrows with quantities of CO2 going both IN and OUT? See they are both large numbers but the difference between them is small? This is the NET amount. Then see the picture of a factory representing human CO2 emissions and how it is a relatively large number compared to the net amount absorbed by the trees and oceans?

This is obvious and self-explanatory. This diagram is just one of many common sources explaining this common fact. Hence why I thought you were being deliberately obtuse or trying to play semantics - it's hard to imagine someone being genuinely confused.
 
I love that 'fossil fuel' tag. Ya ever think about that? We've been 7 miles deep in the earth -that's about a half percentile to the supposed centre- yet we are SO SURE :wink: So sure about those dinos when all we got is some bones. So sure about the age of the universe and origins lol. . Religion.

What are you even arguing about with the chart anyway? It shows it's a closed system in the sense that what gets emitted gets absorbed and vicaversa. Everything finds balance. It's just we don't necessarily want to be the 'filter' for too much dust/soot/pm.

I'd be willing to bet that the most potentially damaging manmade PM pollution happens right over your head everyday. Many days, many places, water vapor and whatever else can be seen from airtraffic to fully dim the sky over the course of the day. Perhaps it's 'net' positive against all of evil disgusting man's combustion happening on the surface hehe.
 
Greenland’s Coastal Ice Caps Have Melted Past The Point Of No Return:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/greenland-coastal-ice-caps-melting_us_58e5f007e4b0fe4ce08840b1

Includes:
In a study published in Nature Communications on Friday, scientists based in Europe and the U.S. describe how the glaciers and ice caps that cover tens of thousands of square miles along the coast of Greenland have reached a critical “tipping point,” beyond which further melting is unavoidable.

Troublingly, the ice had already surpassed this tipping point 20 years ago, the researchers said — only the technology to confirm this hadn’t existed until now.
Click to expand...

:cry:
 
Scientists just uncovered some troubling news about Greenland's most enormous glacier:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/1794e522-d764-3b41-aaa1-17b9a8c213a1/scientists-just-uncovered.html

Starts:
The largest glacier in Greenland is even more vulnerable to sustained ice losses than previously thought, scientists have reported. Jakobshavn glacier, responsible for feeding flotillas of icebergs into the Ilulissat icefjord — and possibly for unleashing the iceberg that sank the Titanic — is an enormous outlet for the larger Greenland ice sheet, which itself contains enough ice to raise seas by more than 20 feet.
Click to expand...

:(
 
More "latest news"...
About the Arctic Council
The Arctic Council is the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction among the Arctic States, Arctic indigenous peoples, and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular on issues of environmental protection and sustainable development in the Arctic. Established in 1996, the Arctic Council is composed of eight Member States (Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States). It also includes six organizations representing Arctic indigenous peoples... etc
Click to expand...

... and:
AMAP, established in 1991 under the eight-country Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, monitors and
assesses the status of the Arctic region with respect to pollution and climate change. AMAP produces science based, policy-relevant assessments and public outreach products to inform policy and decision-making processes. Since 1996, AMAP has served as one of the Arctic Council’s six working groups.
Click to expand...

Their newest report just released:
Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost. Summary for Policy-makers

AMAP, 2017. Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost. Summary for Policy-makers. This document presents the policy-relevant findings of the AMAP 2017 assessments of snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA)
Click to expand...

PDF file here:
http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Snow-Water-Ice-and-Permafrost.-Summary-for-Policy-makers/1532

Includes stuff like:
Key Findings
Key findings of the SWIPA 2017 assessment include:
The Arctic’s climate is shifting to a new state
Climate change in the Arctic has continued at a rapid pace
Changes will continue through at least mid-century, due to warming already locked into the climate system
Click to expand...

Watt news outfit Alaska Dispatch News describes as: Far-north warming and changes are accelerating, say reports issued by Arctic Council groups:
https://www.adn.com/arctic/2017/04/...-say-reports-issued-by-arctic-council-groups/

:cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top