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
Hoax, my butt:
Virtually everybody who has spent time trying to understand this issue accepts Arrhenius work proving the greenhouse effect of CO2. That is, in an imaginary world in which all variables can be held constant we’d expect that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels of 285ppm to 570ppm would cause temperatures to rise by about 1.3C.
Unfortunately for you, we don’t live in an imaginary world. According to the alarmists, in the real world the temperature is effected not only by the “greenhouse effect” of CO2, but there is also a “feedback effect”, or a presumed positive magnification of the greenhouse effect. The disagreement lies in the degree of sensitivity caused by the feedback effect, not the greenhouse effect.
Even among the warmists there is no consensus about the feedback effect. People like Mann and Hansen who get all the press think the feedback effect is quite large. That means they think a doubling in CO2 will cause temperature to rise several multiples more than the mere greenhouse effect. Others think the feedback effect is positive but much, much less than what Mann and Hansen believe. Among the skeptics, there is a small group of scientists who think the feedback effect may actually be negative – that is, that as CO2 rises increased aerosols in the atmosphere cause greater cloud formation which may reflect inbound radiation and actually cause a slight surface cooling. Nobody knows because the science is not settled.
Combine that with the inability to model and even fully understand the natural factors that affect climate, such as: ocean oscillation cycles, solar cycles, the previously mentioned clouds, among others, and it is easy to see that this whole thing is not about science. It’s about using fear of a presumed crisis to change how live. Or politics.
And if you want government to restrict resource utilization because you have a Neo-Malthusian fear that the world’s scarce resources are running out and you’d rather have government allocate them than market forces, then argue on that basis. Stop pretending we know how CO2 will effect climate change or what the ramifications will be. Because we don’t.
There’s a reason why those who worship the religion of denial cannot produce any scientific evidence to support that belief, while those who accept AGW can. .
“The Russians did that,”
Actually, it was Europe, and last I checked, European countries aren’t in denial about AGW.
Since you’ve tossed it out, how about you prove that NASA and NOAA are wrong?
Time is running out so you had better get busy convincing. I plea ignorant and don’t care. It’s up to you to convience the Chineese and the Russians. They are ramping up faster than we are ramping down and every Liberial I know burns gasoline, cools their house to the limits, and heats it to toasty conditions. I don’t care about global warming but I drive a very fuel efficient auto, turn my thermostat to 68 in the winter and 78 in the summer. How about you?
DBQ, I was sourcing my geology degree not Fox. hoax has found his religion and there is no changing them.
“Consensus doesn’t mean anything on an unproven theory.”
Yet another confused right winger who doesn’t understand how science works. Shocking.
Your ignorance offers a high degree of probability that you worship at the alter of the Limbaugh and the Fox. Sorry about that.
Here’s what I just don’t get about the confused, bewildered right winger position of denial:
What’s the worst that could happen if we make aggressive moves towards renewable energy sources? The fossil fuel industries make less money. Boo hoo.
Meanwhile, we create millions of good-paying jobs (not that we need them, of course), take steps in the right direction, cut back on pollution/environmental destruction, and maybe, just MAYBE create a world worth handing off to our kids and grand kids. Golly, how awful.
On the other hand, what if AGW is really real, and we ARE heading for catastrophic disaster, and we do nothing but continue to consume more and more carbon fuel, steadily increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and causing further temperature increases? What’s the economic impact of losing every coastal city on the planet?
The right wing position on this makes utterly no sense whatsoever. To them, it’s become a religion to deny science, and they will not budge, even though nothing about their position is logical or rational. Bizarre.
Consensus doesn’t mean anything on an unproven theory. We might all come to the consensus that you are a hairy marmot with the IQ of a mushroom. That consensus doesn’t make it so. In addition. I don’t make my mind up by reading party line memo’s or talking points.
However, that you fall back on the blame Fox news excuse, shows that we might actually be correct in our consensus.
Where did I source Fox News. Take your time.
“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.”
Astoundingly ignorant. We just landed a probe on a comet, but we aren’t able to do climate science.
The Russians did that, landed a probe on a comet, and they are not exactly falling head over heels in for global warming.
“I said that no one is surprised that there is a financial motivation. Global warming scientists who get paid handsomely to do research into supporting theories that have not been proven.”
The science behind global warming is solid and the scientific community has reached consensus. So sorry that you missed the memo. Try a different source than Fox.
“Laughing, you are proving my point”
You have no clue how science works, do you? Blissfully unaware that the moment a scientist publishes a finding that’s peer-reviewed, and is found to be patently false, that scientists is looking for a new line of work. Credibility is paramount in the field of scientific study. Without it, a scientist has nothing. This alone is enough to deter the publication of erroneous findings, but in this case, it goes even further, because their funding stems from a wide range of sources, not just the big, bad, evil gubmint.
True science is only dead to those who don’t understand how it works.
Let’s be honest . . . how many of you drive the largest SUV on the market? How many of you turn you heat back to 68 and you air condition up to 78? I don’t beleive in global warming but I do all that.
DBQ, Thank you, you get it.
I didn’t say we could trust the oil industry. Please don’t put the words in your head into my mouth.
I said that no one is surprised that there is a financial motivation. Global warming scientists who get paid handsomely to do research into supporting theories that have not been proven.
And to which there are other scientists getting paid handsomely to refute the very same theories.
Oil and gas industries that want to promote the use of their products and have a financial motivation. Carbon credit firms and people like Al Gore want to make money so they promote the non use and credit exchanges of the same products.
Personally. I think they ALL lie. and lie and lie.
None of this is a surprise to anyone who has any experience in living in the world.
hoax, my butt – “Voices on the “right” like to claim that we cannot trust scientists, because they’re receiving funding to do their research, and therefore, presumably, are all intentionally lying in grand unison, just so they can continue to receive said funding, yet somehow, we can trust the oil industry when they push out fake research that attempts to claim that AGW isn’t real.
This doesn’t seem the least bit hypocritical and ignorant to you?”
Laughing, you are proving my point. Only your science and research is to be trusted, well, because it’s honest. Do you read what you write? True science is dead and has been dead for quit a while.
hoax, my butt – “Climate scientists get their funding from a variety of sources, as I stated. Governments from around the world are only ONE source.”
You stating something doesn’t give me any comfort of it’s truth.
Mike Appleton – “Exxon Mobil doesn’t have to come out with any studies. They fund the Heartland Institute for that purpose.”
So I take it you trust everything that the Heartland Institute puts out then.
“Who pretends this? They are in the business of providing, as a business, products that everyone uses on a daily basis and as a business they would be expected to try to make a profit so they can continue to stay in business, employ people, provide the product and expand their business.”
Voices on the “right” like to claim that we cannot trust scientists, because they’re receiving funding to do their research, and therefore, presumably, are all intentionally lying in grand unison, just so they can continue to receive said funding, yet somehow, we can trust the oil industry when they push out fake research that attempts to claim that AGW isn’t real.
This doesn’t seem the least bit hypocritical and ignorant to you?
@ Darren
Sorry I double posted a comment that is in moderation. Feel free to delete one. I think it has to do with the name of the poster I am responding to? Or perhaps that it contains 3 links.
The idea behind “Cascading Failures” will come into play and will accelerate climate change, the ice melt mentioned in the article is a type of cascading failure of a single system. The scope of a system will be broadened as the changes happen.
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?
Who pretends this? They are in the business of providing, as a business, products that everyone uses on a daily basis and as a business they would be expected to try to make a profit so they can continue to stay in business, employ people, provide the product and expand their business.
Just like the people who grow corn or cattle. Businesses. Providing products that have a demand in the market. Unless you are sitting in a dark cave somewhere in animal skins that you tanned yourself, sucking on cattail roots…. you use these products ALL of which are dependent on fossil fuels in many instances along the manufacturing chain.
No one is surprised at this. Why do you think we are?