The news continues to grow worse over global warming. The Peru meeting revealed new research showing that time is running out for humanity to act on climate change. Now to new reports indicate that we may have underestimate the rate of loss on the huge ice sheet of West Antarctica — new calculations under global warming could mean a rise in global sea levels of as much as 23 feet. That would create massive changes in the coasts of the world.
The research indicates that prior computer modeling efforts did not capture the full dynamics of what is happening with these ice sheets during global warming. The difference is immense when one considers that the Greenland ice sheet is 656,000 square miles long with an average thickness of over a mile. If that ice melts at a faster rate, it would result in costly global changes, including the loss of cities and islands.
The more complex models shows that the dimensions of the topography and melting factors should result in a much faster meltdown.
The first new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by scientists at the University at Buffalo and several other institutions, used laser altimetry to measure almost 100,000 elevation points atop the Greenland ice sheet. The result is confirmation of a much higher melting process of about .68 millimeters of annual sea level rise rather than the previously estimated .29 millimeters per year.
A second student in Nature Climate Change by Amber Leeson from the University of Leeds looked at “supraglacial lakes,” which form atop the Greenland ice sheet. These lakes suddenly vanish through “moulins,” or crevasses, that plunge to depths far below the ice sheet. The study indicates that these lakes (which hold greater heat) will become more extensive with global warming and, through draining, accelerate melting.
There of course remain those who refuse to accept the vast majority of scientific researcher and experts on the fact of climate change. However, the concern is that we are passing a redline that divides an unpleasant world from an uninhabitable one.)
The result from Lima is being heralded as an improvement in securing agreement but the details show a substantial lack of consensus, including a refusal of countries to agree on a uniform way of accounting for emissions cuts. That is a critical issue since goals are meaningless if there is not uniform measuring of cuts. It was still more productive than past meetings but scientists warn that time is of the essence as the world continues to debate the most basic elements of a system of reduction of emissions.
Source: Washington Post
Jim22:
Exxon Mobil doesn’t have to come out with any studies. They fund the Heartland Institute for that purpose.
Isn’t it odd how we’re led to distrust climate scientists, because they have a money motive, yet we’re supposed to pretend that the fossil fuel industry has no such motivation?
You mean like when Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson admitted early this year that AGW is real and is man-caused?
http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2014/04/07/exxonmobil-admits-climate-change-is-real-it-also-imposes-an-internal-cost-on-carbon-still-not-enough-to-get-any-love-from-the-greens-interesting-reading-though/
Climate scientists get their funding from a variety of sources, as I stated. Governments from around the world are only ONE source.
hoax, my butt – “Apparently, you’re unaware that the data comes from climate scientists all over the world, and working from a variety of sources, including private, educational, and government extensions.”
Who get their money/grants from……
So, tell me, if Exxon Mobil came out with a report that proved AGW false, you would believe it?
For you confused, bewildered right wingers…
http://skepticalscience.com/
“Why would I believe what the govt. tells us about world temperatures when they can’t/won’t:”
Apparently, you’re unaware that the data comes from climate scientists all over the world, and working from a variety of sources, including private, educational, and government extensions.
“Global warming is just that a theory.”
No kidding. Yes, it’s a theory, based upon a long-proven fact called “Greenhouse effect.” Look it up sometime. You might just be able to enlighten yourself a tad.
Why would I believe what the govt. tells us about world temperatures when they can’t/won’t:
– Give us a real unemployment number
– Tell us how many people actually signed up and paid for Obamacare
– Give us a real inflation number.
– Tell us they are cutting a budget that is really larger than the previous year.
– Keep your Dr., It’s not a tax, oh wait, yes it is.
Me too. I was unsure about global warming until the government jumped in and supported. Show me one thing they have been right about in the last fifty years.
Frack Wells, I picked up on the same thing.
Bailers brings up a good point, since the science is settled, we should cut off all funding. Time to pack up and find another false crises.
The time for study is over, now is the time for action.
I propose all funding for studying global climate change be pulled from researchers and directed to various methods to help mitigate the effects on this planet.
Darren, After the Viet Nam war ended, liberal activists needed a new cause. The environmental movement became their new cause. Read the history of Greenpeace and how they stole a level headed, commonsense organization started by a Canadian from up in your area, Patrick Moore. The radicals took over Greenpeace and ran Moore out of the organization. The vast majority of people have the common sense approach of Moore, who has the temerity to support nuclear energy. I have listened to too many NPR shows where callers pride themselves in “getting off the grid.” Let’s not forget, Ted Kaczynski was an environmentalist.
I am a tad confused by the article whose lead concerns Western Antarctica (I had assumed that there is only northern Antarctica, since every direction from the South Pole is north). After the first bit, though, it uses measurements from Greenland, which is near the Arctic Circle. So the connection between the Greenland measurements and the Antarctic need to be clarified.
One observation I made I the climate change issue is often aligned with partisanship. That is not a new event but in my view has its roots back in the 1970’s.
The environmental movement made a strategic blunder in siding with a narrow range particular political groups and politicians. This caused itself to be labeled as counter-cultural to the mainstream and outside what the average person identified with. The effect this had was to bring up the assumption in too many individuals that much that was offered by the environmental movement was done at the behest of the counter-culture and therefore suspect or not credible.
Later, the movement became more identified with the left and as a reaction the right used this as a means to garner support. After that it became largely a political issue rather than a scientific. Mix that with large political machines and undue influences from various moneyed interests and deadlock and obfuscation of facts become common.
The movement did make important strides on the federal level mostly, yet I believe much more could have been accomplished had it not become so political. It does not have to be this way.
That is funny because they think that sea level rise is how fossils got in the land of the Rocky Mountains.
No one said that. You are ASSuming statements that have not been presented.
The sea in the rocky mountain area is due to the plate tectonics which raise and lower land. Create and divide continents. Raise mountains and sink them…if they aren’t eroded by ice, glaciers, water etc.
long proven science behind global warming theory.
Global warming is just that a theory. You might want to look up the definition of theory….Hypothesis would also be a good word to consider. Nothing has been been “proven” as there are still many bodies of data that contradict each other. What has been proven is that scientists who have a vested interest in being funded to promote global warming have been caught fudging the data in their favor.
Scientists have had many “theories” that were once considered to be proven true that have subsequently been proven to be false.
“Groty
While you and other global leftists pretend to believe that the colorless, odorless trace gas carbon dioxide has extraordinary supernatural powers…”
Yet another confused, bewildered little right winger, oblivious to the very simple to understand, long proven science behind global warming theory. You really should try to enlighten yourself a bit before you start spouting off on a given subject.
Meanwhile, there’s nothing sacred whatever about oil being the economic center of the universe. Before petroleum, it was whale oil. Before that, gold. There is NOTHING demanding that we continue to rely upon oil as the foundation for the planet’s economic systems. Nothing. This was set in place by the oil oligarchs, but it is NOT a necessity at all. In fact, if you’ll notice, it appears that our reliance upon oil as our sole economic force has created an enormous amount of human suffering and death, and we could be far better served with an entirely different model.
Here are the papers in question:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2463.html
https://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/simons/pdf/PNAS-2012.pdf
Naturally, these are rather more instructive than the press releases based upon them, or the newspaper articles based upon the press releases based upon them, or the blog posts based on the newspaper articles based upon the press releases based upon them. (A blog post which ironically headlined Antarctica when the papers were about Greenland).
“Msjettexas
I remember in the 70’s, the Liberal mantra was global cooling. ”
Actually, only a handful of scientists at the time believed that we were entering a cooling phase. The general consensus amongst the vast majority of climate scientists has always been a belief in warming. Confused, bewildered little right wingers like to cling to the cooling belief, because it allows them to casually brush aside all science as being “wrong.” Convenient for them, I suppose, since they’re all dead set on aligning themselves with their right wing propaganda ministers.
Meanwhile, early this year, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson admitted that global warming is real and that it’s man-caused. Oopsies. I guess Rush and Fox forgot to mention that, eh?
Science is never settled, but it is settled about global warming until there is proof that the other studies are flawed and wrong. I get a good laugh out of the ignorance of most of the fools on this site. That is funny because they think that sea level rise is how fossils got in the land of the Rocky Mountains. THAT takes some colossal ignorance. So since the deniers are so blatantly ignorant, I think we can take their claims as being similarly wrong.
Call it whatever you like. I’m explaining what factually happened.